Archive of published articles on March 10th, 2009

Back home

Dr. Taitz Speaks with Justice Scalia at Book Signing

03/10/2009

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama as well as the now-defunct case Lightfoot v. Bowen, had a chance to speak briefly with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia while he had been in California for a book signing event:

At any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.

I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks, I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4 people to hear it.   He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these 4 that call themselves Constitutionalists, went to the other side. He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that quo warranto is antiquated or not appropriate, no, just get 4. Right after that he went into the issue of the 17th amendment. He stated that today the Congress and the Senate are not accountable to the states and can do whatever they please. He stated, that when the rules of the game were changed in 1913, when the senators were no longer chosen by the state legislature, but rather elected, therefor they are not accountable to the states, cannot be recalled by the state and that is why there is such an overreaching power by the federal government. The way I understood it, is that maybe the 17th amendment needs to be repealed or maybe we should check our voting machines, since the Sequoia software in our voting machines is owned by the communist Hugo Chavez. of Venezuela.

Right after the presentation there was a book signing. I bought two books-regular and limited edition of his “Making the Case, the Art of Persuading Judges” (the limited edition alone was $150) . I stood at the end of the line and let everyone else go ahead of me. I figured while he is signing two books, me being the last and he is not rushed, he might have a minute to ask another question. So, after another hour on my feet (after I stood for a couple of hours at the presentation), I gave him the books to sign and asked “Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”. He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others. I asked,  tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio-  he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember.  Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks, those “mahers”, that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless? I don’t know. At the end I gave him my 164 page dossier, that I’ve sent to Holder about all the suspected criminal activity, intimidation harrassment, cyber crime surrounding me and officer Easterling. Scalia seemed to be interested and started reading the first page, he put it next to him, but then the secret service agent grabbed it. What could I do at theis point? Wrestle with the secret service?  Clearly that wasn’t the time and the place to show of my black belt Tae kwon Do skills.  I just shut up and left. There was nothing else I could do at that meeting

Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz doesn’t mention any further details about the venue (hence why I cross-checked this with any other coverage of the Associate Justice being in California over the past few days, such as this link to other coverage concerning TownHall). Nevertheless, I appreciate Justice Scalia going a bit into the importance of the 17th Amendment regarding States’ rights in the Constitution; one can truly only imagine what would happen if the so-called “stimulus” bill — or other such legislation — were to have to be OK’d by the States besides just the People.

It’s also interesting to note the following about Justice Scalia’s book:

Justice Scalia’s newly released book, co-authored with Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, is a guide for novice and experienced litigators, presenting important ideas about judicial persuasion. The book covers the essentials of sound legal reasoning, including how to develop the syllogism that underlies any argument.

Update: WorldNetDaily is similarly covering this story.

-Phil

181 Comments

Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 3

03/10/2009

This afternoon, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has released the third part of his three-part legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto:

Read the rest of this post »

100 Comments

MO State House Rules Committee: “Do Pass” on State Sovereignty Resolution

03/10/2009

Missouri State Rep. Jim Guest sponsors his State’s sovereignty resolution, HCR13 (status page).

It has been referred to the Rules Committee wherein it has been reported as, “Do Pass” once it has been scheduled to the floor for a vote.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

-Phil

5 Comments

Tuesday’s Top Stories

03/10/2009

Eligibility

Wikipedia

Blogging

Read the rest of this post »

2 Comments

Retired US Air Force Sergeant Consents to Join Suit

03/10/2009

Dr. Orly Taitz reports that Sergeant Harold Abrams, USAF (Retired), has consented to be a Plaintiff in her upcoming lawsuit designed to order the President to release his vital documentation to establish his eligibility for the office.

Also:

122 plaintiffs signed up for our legal action, to demand Obama unseal of his vital records and prove that he is eligible for presidency…

Other Plaintiffs in the upcoming lawsuit include the following:

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

11 Comments