Lightfoot v. Bowen: Dr. Taitz Files Motion to Reconsider, Quo Warranto

by Phil on 03/12/2009

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Lightfoot v. Bowen, reports this evening that she has filed a motion with the Supreme Court to reconsider her petition.

The following excerpts briefly describe some of the reasons for her refile:

The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009. 
The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case. …

The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided. 
Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21,  2009 [my link], one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone  prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.

Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd. 
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence. 
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases.  However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased,  This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.

Dr. Taitz further describes how she’ll deliver her motion:

Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States,  FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.

At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.

Here is the link to the Lightfoot v. Bowen existing Supreme Court docket.

Update: From commenter “Sharon 2:”

From Seattle Times

Chief Justice John Roberts discusses Lincoln

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_id_roberts_idaho.html

“. . .At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had documents proving that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus could not be president. While audience members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.

Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with her, she should give them to security officers. He also said he could not discuss the issue. . . .”

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

There are 91 comments in this article:

  1. 03/12/2009jbjd says:

    Now that BO has indicated he might call up the National Guard to federal service in the conflict along the US-Mexican border, it is time to re-visit my original proposal to use NG Plaintiffs in a federal Declaratory Judgment suit to determine his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS.

    Obama Says National Guard Might Be Sent To US-Mexican Border
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4861510.shtml

    Early last November, I posted a memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! This explained my then new solution to gaining standing to challenge BO’s Constitutional eligibility in federal court, by using military Plaintiffs. In that memo, I specifically proposed using National Guard, about to be deployed. As I recently explained in detail on my blog, in responses to comments posted by my readers, NG are under the control of the Governor of the state until called up to serve in the military and are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until federalized. Plus, the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, under which my Complaint is brought, acts as sort of a class action mechanism, without having to certify the class. That is, the ruling received by one Plaintiff applies to all similarly situated Plaintiffs. In effect, this means that if one Plaintiff gets called up to active duty, meaning he is federalized and under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, he can drop out; and another NG member not yet called up can be substituted, no harm, no foul.

    Please pass the word about this safe viable option to vet the CIC.

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

  2. 03/12/2009Dave says:

    Thats one bada$$ lady. Glad as hell I`m on here side.

  3. 03/12/2009Anonymous says:

    Lightfoot v. Bowen is dead. The deadlines for reconsideration and petition for writ of certiorari have both passed. Given that the Superior Court today issued its preliminary rulings in Keyes v. Bowen — indicating that the mandamus will be dismissed and the subpoena to Occidental College quashed — Orly is no doubt in full meltdown.

  4. 03/12/2009slamdunk says:

    The Justice Steamroller is surging ahead.

  5. 03/12/2009Vincent Omnia Veritas says:

    Go Orly go!

    I love this paragraph:

    Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States, FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.

    Dr. Orly, DDS: Thanks for the entertainment and keep up the good work. ;) Where can one contribute to the “Nitrous Oxide for Orly Fund”? You had better include some evidence for your claim of sabotage over at SCOTUS with that motion. Just sayin”…..

  6. 03/12/2009Practical Kat says:

    This is outright stupid.

    Here’s the SCOTUS docket for Lightfoot v. Bowen:

    Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
    Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
    Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
    Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
    Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
    Jan 26 2009 Application (08A524) denied by the Court.
    </blockquote.

    Anything missing? You’ll note that Orly’s application for “stay” was denied… TWICE … but no petition for cert was ever filed.

    Lightfoot v. Bowen was denied by the California Supreme Court on Dec 5. The deadline for a cert position is 90 days from date of entry of the order or judgment appealed from.

    That means that the TIME FOR FILING A PETITION FOR CERT ran out on MARCH 5, 2009.

    There is no such thing in SCOTUS as a “petition for reconsideration” — there is a “petition for rehearing” that can be filed after the denial of certiorari, but that can’t be done because no cert petition was ever filed. And if treat the denial of the “stay” request as January 26, the time still would have run out as of February 20.

    Orly is (a) insane; and/or (b) extraordinarily stupid. She would have better luck to send shredded toilet paper to the court.

  7. 03/13/2009richCares says:

    In Orly’s motion:
    “Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2009, one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
    Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.”

    Reality:
    The web site operated by the Supreme Court is for public information, the court does not store their files on this public web site so nothing was “erased”. The public info web site was temporarily down for maintenance, so not all info was accessible, it returned to service within 24 hrs. Orly’s is delusional, really delusional!

    This motion will really be humorous to the court, maybe a smack down is on order.

  8. 03/13/2009Sue says:

    “Orly is no doubt in full meltdown.”

    Total and complete meltdown. Big time.

    “Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM.”

    I can hardly wait to see Orly’s “evidence of sabotage.” I don’t think it is the University of Moscow, Idaho but rather The University of Idaho, Moscow campus?

  9. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    Since Scalia was one of the alleged four who were going to vote for Taitz, outing him as discussing having an ex parte conversation with one side’s lawyer is grounds for recusal. Where are the four votes going to come from now?

  10. 03/13/2009Jacki says:

    I see those from PolitiJab are out causing mischief again being Internet Thugs…

    Orly is a bulldog with a mission…. Go lady!!

  11. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM.

    First rule of stalking: Don’t tell your subject exactly when you’ll be stalking them.

    Still, how will Taitz be able to be in Sacramento to get the bad news about Keyes v. Bowen and still be able to get to Idaho to go all Le Liaison Fatale?

    In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion

    Such dramatics! This is so much better than the TV!

  12. 03/13/2009Pixel Patriot says:

    Vincent Omnia Veritas…
    You like all of those seeking to suppress the truth as opposed to shining a glaring light on it for all to see are keen to pick and choose the parts you like and exclude that which guides you to the truth which is clear as day right before your eyes:

    She said she does have and has even given written example as to its veracity and manner with which it was obtained: (word up):

    “However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date.”

    This information as well as all of the other cited mountain of evidence which is continually mounting will in fact one day be entered into a court of law by which a case will be heard on the merits. Count on it.

    “If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
    – Émile Zola

  13. 03/13/2009Diane says:

    I hope Mr. Bickel gets fired from his job. It is not his job to “categorically refused to file this brief in the docket”. Proper procedure seems to have been broken. That alone should be cause for reissuing a brief in the docket but I am not a lawyer.

  14. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    And people didn’t believe me when I said Bickell tampered with this case.

    Here’s your sign folks. Corruption at the highest level of our court system.

    “Uh, we didn’t know about your case.”
    “Uh, we didn’t know Bickell was tampering with cases, but we love him nonetheless.”

    How many times does everyone need to be beat over the head that SCOTUS is a dead end?????

  15. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    Orly is (a) insane; and/or (b) extraordinarily stupid. She would have better luck to send shredded toilet paper to the court.

    We could also be dealing with a semantics issue, and what she actually files has better word choices than what she’s made public. Or not.

    However, I find it rather disingenuous to be going ad hominem on Dr. Taitz simply because she’s not as fluent with the English language as, say, you or I. After all, she has been admitted as an attorney in the Supreme Court.

    -Phil

  16. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    richCares,

    Orly’s is delusional, really delusional!

    How quick you are to run to judgment against her. She may have been mistaken about what happened to the docketing system, but if nobody has, to date, reported on exactly what happened, it is as much of her prerogative to believe something malicious happened as she is to believe that a router was down for 30 minutes (if that’s what happened).

    Either way, she obviously has the opportunity to file as she wishes, and if the Supreme Court thinks it’s bogus, they’ll deal with the complaint accordingly.

    Personally, my view on this situation has already been posted.

    -Phil

  17. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    I can hardly wait to see Orly’s “evidence of sabotage.” I don’t think it is the University of Moscow, Idaho but rather The University of Idaho, Moscow campus?

    She is simply raising a question which, to date, has had no formal explanation either way. It is her prerogative to question, and it is the Supreme Court’s prerogative to respond accordingly.

    I’ve similarly reported on this during that time.

  18. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    Still, how will Taitz be able to be in Sacramento to get the bad news about Keyes v. Bowen and still be able to get to Idaho to go all Le Liaison Fatale?

    Simply put, Keyes v. Bowen is Gary Kreep’s suit, while Lightfoot v. Bowen is Dr. Taitz’ (at least they are the respective lead attorneys on each).

    -Phil

  19. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    I suspect Danny will not only be kept as a clerk, he’s going to receive a nice raise this year at the expense of taxpayers like yourself. There’s nothing more American than “rewarding” those who obstruct justice. Roberts has already whined to Congress earlier this year about how he and other judges are not getting paid enough. Perfect timing for the bailout discussion.

    After all, Mr. Bickell has taken the liberty of giving the 9 justices an excuse not to be held accountable for their actions.

  20. 03/13/2009sus says:

    Phil,
    Orly did indicate it was a malicious attack against her case. That is delusional. ObamaCrimes has been having problems online. So is Politijab. Things happen.

    But, Orly got all her Patriots in an uproar over it.
    Things just aren’t as she reports them.

    If the clerks are less than friendly to her, maybe it’s because she posted the phone numbers on her site and asked everyone to call. They are not mishandling her cases. She is mishandling her cases. But, they probably aren’t too happy about the email and phonecalls either.

  21. 03/13/2009sue says:

    “I hope Mr. Bickel gets fired from his job. It is not his job to “categorically refused to file this brief in the docket”. Proper procedure seems to have been broken. That alone should be cause for reissuing a brief in the docket but I am not a lawyer.”

    I would suggest you get the other side of the story before you find Mr. Bickel guilty. And, if you do have a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest you go share this and other motions of Orly’s and see what that lawyer tells you regarding this issue. If anybody has a problem with proper procedure, it is Orly, NOT the SCOTUS clerks or the Justices.

    In my opinion, Orly is a disgrace to the legal profession and needs to be disbarred. If anyone has had the good fortune to know a ethical and competent lawyer, then you would be fully aware of this. As I’ve stated, take the time to seek out a ethical and competent attorney, print out some of Orly’s motions/petitions and get that attorney’s opinion of these motions/petitions. Again, this is just my opinion. Also, take the time to research the rules of law, rules of evidence, etc. for yourself.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/index.html#10
    Supreme Court Rules

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule802
    Federal Rules of Evidence

  22. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    sus,

    The truth of the matter is that we have a lot of assumptions, presumptions, subjective opinions and what not being bandied about on a lot of different fronts, to date.

    Regarding Court Clerks, please see here, here, and here; in my view, there is enough evidence to warrant concern over how bureaucrats at the federal level — much less the State level — have handled protocol. Protocol. Isn’t that fascinating? Protocol doesn’t require a brain to execute; it’s a step-by-step listing of instructions of what one is absolutely tasked to do.

    Further, I don’t really care if Dr. Taitz posted the phone numbers of all the Clerks at the Supreme Court; that has absolutely zero bearing on the Clerk’s absolute responsibility to follow protocol. Maybe one day you or someone with whom you agree were to bring an issue about which you really care before the Supreme Court. Do you expect to have the Clerks follow protocol for your case to the “T,” so that your case, no matter how much others feel it may be outlandish, is handled just like any other case? Of course you would. So don’t be telling me that crap doesn’t happen with bureaucrats, because it does, and it needs to be rooted out at the first sign of appearance, in my view.

    Regarding Dr. Taitz, if you wish to call her characterizations of unknown behavior “delusional,” obviously that’s your prerogative, but I would characterize your characterization as being strongly biased against her being able to even raise a question over the issue. For me, as with the eligibility issue, so, too, with this: I don’t know enough to be able to say, one way or the other, exactly what’s happening, but I’m not going to brow-beat someone for raising a question.

    Remember also that the entire issue with Mr. Obama has to do with his status at birth. Many “illegitimizers” want to go on about parentage and what not, or about the dozens of interpretations of the 14th Amendment ad nauseam. While those discussions do have merit for those wishing to have a theoretical debate on the law, the bottom line is that Mr. Obama had, at best, dual citizenship at birth and, at worst, UK citizenship alone. To me, that’s the biggest issue with the entire eligibility saga; wait, no, that isn’t. It’s the following:

    Nobody knows who Mr. Obama really is!

    -Phil

  23. 03/13/2009Anonymous says:

    “I see those from PolitiJab are out causing mischief again being Internet Thugs…”

    Many of the politijab “thugs” as you call them are ethical and competent attorneys.

    I might also point out that so far, their assessment of the outcome of these lawsuits have been 100% correct. Right down to the call of possible sanctions in the recent Hollister v. Soetoro case.

  24. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    How many times does everyone need to be beat over the head that SCOTUS is a dead end?????

    Agreed! Please tell Taitz to stop bothering the court, so it can get onto real work.

  25. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    You like all of those seeking to suppress the truth as opposed to shining a glaring light on it for all to see are keen to pick and choose the parts you like and exclude that which guides you to the truth which is clear as day right before your eyes:

    Oh, the irony.

    “However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date.”

    As the court indicated, there was a computer error.

    To test this, I went to SCOTUS’ online docketing, and noticed all applications were missing. Not just the Lightfoot application.

    It was a systemic issue; not a case-specific issue.

  26. 03/13/2009Obot 1024 says:

    “How quick you are to run to judgment against her. She may have been mistaken about what happened to the docketing system, but if nobody has, to date, reported on exactly what happened, it is as much of her prerogative to believe something malicious happened as she is to believe that a router was down for 30 minutes (if that’s what happened).”

    So because no one has proven something beyond a reasonable doubt ANY explanation is considered valid?

    I think I am beginning to understand the whole thought process for conspiracy theorists.

  27. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    Regarding Court Clerks, please see here, here, and here; in my view, there is enough evidence to warrant concern over how bureaucrats at the federal level — much less the State level — have handled protocol.

    Funny how nonlitigators who lose obviously unmeritorious cases all have the same fallback excuse: “It was the clerk’s fault!” (Then again, a seasoned litigator — one who knows court procedures and how to correct mistakes (regardless of blame) — wouldn’t be on these cases.)

    Protocol doesn’t require a brain to execute; it’s a step-by-step listing of instructions of what one is absolutely tasked to do.

    Which task, exactly, was not followed?

    Maybe one day you or someone with whom you agree were to bring an issue about which you really care before the Supreme Court. Do you expect to have the Clerks follow protocol for your case to the “T,” so that your case, no matter how much others feel it may be outlandish, is handled just like any other case?

    And you have evidence that Taitz’s case is not being handled just like any other case?

    Regarding Dr. Taitz, if you wish to call her characterizations of unknown behavior “delusional,” obviously that’s your prerogative

    This isn’t the first time Taitz has cried wolf; patterns have formed.

  28. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    However, I find it rather disingenuous to be going ad hominem on Dr. Taitz simply because she’s not as fluent with the English language as, say, you or I.

    It isn’t a language issue; it a blowing-of-deadlines issue. If you file a late petition for rehearing and call it a pig, it’ll still be denied as untimely.

    After all, she has been admitted as an attorney in the Supreme Court.

    Which is not a difficult task (requires being an attorney, a sponsor, and some cash).

  29. 03/13/2009Anonymous says:

    “Protocol doesn’t require a brain to execute; it’s a step-by-step listing of instructions of what one is absolutely tasked to do.”

    Phil, Your above statement can certainly be applied to Orly. Rules of law are “step-by-step listing of instructions of what one is absolutely tasked to do.” Note SCOTUS rules.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/index.html#10
    RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Here is admission to the Bar.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/5.html
    Rule 5. Admission to the Bar

    Now, sometimes I have a bit of trouble understanding them and have to seek some help. But, Orly is a lawyer and should have no problem at all understanding these rules. And, if it is as you suggest, a language problem, then she should seek help understanding the rules from a compentent attorney, no? That should not be an excuse for Orly.

  30. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    Simply put, Keyes v. Bowen is Gary Kreep’s suit

    Taitz has attempted to serve a number of subpoenas in Keyes v. Bowen; their respective litigation roles are unclear.

    The point being it is surprising Taitz would miss an opportunity to go to court.

  31. 03/13/2009Ballantine says:

    Pretty entertaining. Have to admire the spunk. My favorite part is:

    “The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners…”

    Looking at her brief, I imagine the summary went something like:

    (i) Standing. None.
    (ii) Jurisdiction. None.
    (iii) de Vattel. The first English translation of Law of Nations to include the phrase “natural born citizen” not published until after founding. Original translation was “indigenes”. No evidence that founders or any authority in early republic defined “natural born” in accordance with de Vattel.
    (iv) Bingham. Bingham didn’t write the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment and has long been known to have unorthodox views on the constitution. During the debate, the chairman of the judiciary committee contradicted Bingham directly stating children of aliens where natural born and cited authority to back it up. Don’t understand why opinions of congressmen 80 years after the founding should be given any weight anyway?
    (v) Wong Kim Ark. Unclear why use of “native-born” rather than “natural-born” matters? Stating he was “natural-born” would have been superfluous, as such was not in issue. A court’s failure to state something superfluous is not authority. Had petitioner researched, she would have seen that to most of the early constitutional commentators “native” and “natural-born” meant the same thing, including many of the authorities cited by the both the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark and including de Vattel, who petitioner a few pages earlier cites as dispositive on the issue.
    (vi) Duel Citizenship. Appears to be no authority to support this assertion. Why would founders let another country decide who is eligble for POTUS by their citizenship laws?
    (vii) Other Evidence. Fails to mention that from the founding period until reconstruction (the period most relevant to the original meaning), pretty much every significant commentator, law dictionary and judicial statement on natural born citizenship either directly stated or implied such phrase was derivative of common law jus soli principles.
    (viii) Birth Certificate. Has no actual evidence of birth outside of Hawaii.

  32. 03/13/2009sue says:

    “Protocol. Isn’t that fascinating? Protocol doesn’t require a brain to execute; it’s a step-by-step listing of instructions of what one is absolutely tasked to do.”

    The above statement could also be applied to Orly.

  33. 03/13/2009Naught says:

    Just kudos to you Phil. I’ve been reading a lot of blogs and sites that are willing to cover Soetoro’s eligibility for the past 8-9 months. Far and away, yours is my favorite. I can always count on you for a dose of the truth and some insightful observations. Thanks, from a daily reader.

  34. 03/13/2009Tim Baker says:

    Orly is comedy gold. I woulkd like to thank whoever is putting her up to this stuff. Just when you are about to get bored with the show, she comes up with an even bigger stunt. Good thing it’s all an act. Can you imaginethe uproar among righties if a foreign born lawyer had tried to get W removed in the middle of two wars?

  35. 03/13/2009sue says:

    “Regarding Court Clerks, please see here, here, and here; in my view, there is enough evidence to warrant concern over how bureaucrats at the federal level”

    What evidence?

    It seems rather strange to me that Donofrio, Orly and Berg all three have had issues with court clerks. Nothing is ever their fault. It is always the “court clerks fault.”

  36. 03/13/2009Anonymous says:

    The fact that Applications for Stay were temporarily not available on the publicly accessible electronic docket does not mean they disappeared from the Court’s docket. This have been previously explained, you simply have to read and understand it. The electronic system is regularly taken down for updating and maintenance. In January, a glitch occurred and Applications for Stay that were “orphaned” — in order words, they were connected to any petition for writ of certiorari — were temporarily inaccessible. Had Orly filed a petition (her Application was filed “pending” a filing of a petition), there would have been a notation and cross posting of the stay application in the docket entries in the primary case. Orly does not understand dockets, electronic docketing, and thus cannot seem to grasp that her case itself did not disappear.

  37. 03/13/2009sue says:

    “She is mishandling her cases.”

    I agree. Orly has no one to blame but herself.

  38. 03/13/2009Anonymous says:

    What she is not fluent in is Rules of the Supreme Court.

  39. 03/13/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    Phil,

    According to the pleadings, Orly IS the “lead” attorney on Keyes v. Bowen. With respect to appearing in court today, perhaps the Bowen case that is still alive (for now, but not for long) is less important to Orly than the Lightfoot case for which all deadlines have expired.

  40. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Obot 1024,

    So because no one has proven something beyond a reasonable doubt ANY explanation is considered valid?

    I did not say that. What I said was that “it is as much of her prerogative to believe something malicious happened as she is to believe that a router was down for 30 minutes” with respect to the context of moving to reconsider her original submission.

    Nowhere did I stipulate that she was right or wrong with her accusation. In fact, what I did say was, “How quick you are to run to judgment against her.”

    Surely I’m not the only person who has the ability to suspend disbelief on anyone’s part to actually look at something reasonably objectively.

    -Phil

  41. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    Funny how nonlitigators who lose obviously unmeritorious cases all have the same fallback excuse: “It was the clerk’s fault!” (Then again, a seasoned litigator — one who knows court procedures and how to correct mistakes (regardless of blame) — wouldn’t be on these cases.)

    I don’t think you read the links to which I referred.

    Which task, exactly, was not followed?

    Again, I don’t think you read the links to which I referred. Three postings on my site go into minute detail on the issue at hand; that’s why I linked to them.

    And you have evidence that Taitz’s case is not being handled just like any other case?

    Shocking as it may be, the issue is one of not knowing many things (hence, while apparently many things are obvious to you, they are not from others’ perspectives, such as myself) going on with respect to the entire eligibility question. Except, of course, that the President had at least one major “at birth” issue.

    This isn’t the first time Taitz has cried wolf; patterns have formed.

    This isn’t the first time that “illegitimizers” have shown that they have absolutely no problems with a lack of eligibility enforceability regarding the presidency.

    -Phil

  42. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    Anything missing?

    Deep in the papers, Taitz alleges she attempted to file a “SUPPLEMENT, MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT UNDER US CONSTITUITON ARTICLE 2, §1, AND AMENDMENT20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) AND (4)” on January 15, 2009, and it was bounced by the clerk.

    IIRC, the clerk told her there was no legal basis for granting the motion — how can SCOTUS grant a motion “declaring” that Obama “failed to qualify by default”? (Especially since Obama wasn’t even a litigant in the Lightfoot case.)

  43. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Anonymous,

    Now, sometimes I have a bit of trouble understanding them and have to seek some help. But, Orly is a lawyer and should have no problem at all understanding these rules. And, if it is as you suggest, a language problem, then she should seek help understanding the rules from a compentent attorney, no? That should not be an excuse for Orly.

    While I do agree with everything you’ve said, the issue at hand was in defending Dr. Taitz’ apparent language and/or presentational imperfections, as they are. In context, her opposition likes to hang on every word she says; I’m simply saying that while she should be held to account for her actions (just like any other attorney), I think that many need to take a moment, catch their breath, and perhaps re-interpret what Dr. Taitz is trying to say, especially in light of English not being her native tongue.

    Other than that, as much as I hear the opposition speaking words like “sanctions” and other such verbiage, as a third person to all of this, I would be interested to know why a Court across the country has not specifically slapped more Plaintiffs with sanctions (then again, maybe that’s because many of the Plaintiffs have been pro se; can you sanction a common citizen?).

    -Phil

  44. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    I don’t think you read the links to which I referred.

    Wrong.

    Again, I don’t think you read the links to which I referred.

    Wrong.

    Shocking as it may be, the issue is one of not knowing many things (hence, while apparently many things are obvious to you, they are not from others’ perspectives, such as myself) going on with respect to the entire eligibility question.

    No duck-and-weaves, please: The question was specifically about Taitz’s case. Where’s your evidence that her case is receiving “special” treatment?

    This isn’t the first time that “illegitimizers” have shown that they have absolutely no problems with a lack of eligibility enforceability regarding the presidency.

    Another duck-and-weave: The subject is Taitz.

  45. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    This isn’t the first time that “illegitimizers” have shown that they have absolutely no problems with a lack of eligibility enforceability regarding the presidency.

    BTW, your rationale for miscontruing the beliefs of those that disagree with you (and using the term “illegitimizers”) is really elusive.

  46. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Naught,

    Just kudos to you Phil. I’ve been reading a lot of blogs and sites that are willing to cover Soetoro’s eligibility for the past 8-9 months. Far and away, yours is my favorite. I can always count on you for a dose of the truth and some insightful observations. Thanks, from a daily reader.

    Thanks for the kind words. It takes everyone to make it happen, whether one agrees or not with a given issue at hand.

    Also, I strive for the truth, and I’m always learning. However, I think my site has situated itself as a “moderate” site. This means that — as an example — while I question the President’s eligibility, I am actually open to consider official word on the matter that he is eligible. Yet, in the meantime, I shall not presume anyone to automatically be eligible for the title of President until they can prove that they are eligible!

    -Phil

  47. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    sue,

    You might want to do some research on this. Bickell has denied 2 other cases besides Orly’s and both attorneys have evidence Bickell flat out denied the cases on his own accord. Only a justice has legal authority to deny cases.

    One attorney, Donofrio, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding obstruction. It’s unclear where that complaint is.

  48. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Tim Baker,

    Can you imaginethe uproar among righties if a foreign born lawyer had tried to get W removed in the middle of two wars?

    I, for one, am already on record here some months ago making a comment that I think President GW Bush could have been impeached for far less than going to Iraq.

    -Phil

  49. 03/13/2009Bob says:

    I would be interested to know why a Court across the country has not specifically slapped more Plaintiffs with sanctions (then again, maybe that’s because many of the Plaintiffs have been pro se; can you sanction a common citizen?).

    Pro se litigants can be sanctioned, but it is uncommon. (Tax “protesters” being the most common targets.) Usually done only to repeat offenders; sometimes when the pursuit of the suit has (in the judge’s eyes) gone beyond good faith and has become vexacious.

  50. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    Oh I get it now. Because she’s “annoying”, justice should not be served and clerks can do whatever they want to applications and cases without a judge ever seeing it.

    Perfect. Now we see why the judicial due process is completely broken in this country. Orly has an excellent question of “have you even reviewed my case???”. The answer should be one of the 3:

    1. Corruption is running amuck at scotus

    OR

    2. The clerks are so incompetant they continue to “lose” documentation, deny applications and cases, and conveniently ship paperwork off to the antrax lab whenever it suits them.

    OR

    3. The justices aren’t doing what is being noted in the case and application filings.

    Excellent. I’d love to work in that office and do whatever I want with total disregard for procedures, protocol, and the law[sarcasm mine].

  51. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    The question was specifically about Taitz’s case. Where’s your evidence that her case is receiving “special” treatment?

    I have never said that she was or wasn’t receiving “special,” as you’ve characterized it, treatment. I did say, however, that (1) I don’t know and wouldn’t claim to know; and (2) that it is her prerogative to move forward in the direction she thinks is best (regardless of how badly others think of her actions).

    Furthermore, as I’ve already displayed on this site, I’ll be more than happy to take her to task — and I’ve done it before, such as the very notable time when she claimed that the Chief Justice “agreed to hear” her case, when, in fact, all he (or clerks) did was put it to Conference.

    -Phil

  52. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    BTW, your rationale for miscontruing the beliefs of those that disagree with you (and using the term “illegitimizers”) is really elusive.

    Aw, Bob, you don’t like the term that I coined? Tsk, tsk. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be called a “birther” or “birfer,” so instead of whining and complaining about it, I’ve decided to come up with a term of my own: illegitimizer.

    Incidentally, I don’t actually call anyone by this term; it is the conclusions that people draw that I’m addressing. However, if such conclusion is covered by my term, then it fits.

    My definition of an “illegitimizer”: Someone who thinks or believes that there should be no legal requirement to enforce the eligibility requirements as stated in the Constitution for a presidential nominee.

    I’ll let you decide if you think you fall under the term.

    -Phil

  53. 03/13/2009Talon says:

    Obama in his own words…

    Obama in his own words…

    Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

    Source: Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention Speech, 28 Aug 2008.

    Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya.

    Source: Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address, 27 Jul 2004.

  54. 03/13/2009Anonymous says:

    Pretty much all government mail goes to the anthrax lab these days.
    http://tinyurl.com/d9ubvk

    I haven’t seen any evidence of the clerks obstructing justice or otherwise abusing their position, and given Counselor Taitz’s history, I suspect that she’s…let’s say…overstating what happened.

  55. 03/13/2009marge says:

    One of Phillip Berg’s cases was misfiled also.

  56. 03/13/2009Vincent Omnia Veritas says:

    Anonymous

    Please stop interjecting facts on this blog. You are ruled out of order. Anyone who would point out that there is absolutely no evidence that Obama is ineligible, that the lawyers bringing suits vary from incompetent to insane, and that the Constitution has been followed faithfully, is obviously a thug.

  57. 03/13/20091Lishell says:

    You didn’t use IRAC or CREAC format in writing your brief. Bad Ballantine.

  58. 03/13/2009sue says:

    “You might want to do some research on this. Bickell has denied 2 other cases besides Orly’s and both attorneys have evidence Bickell flat out denied the cases on his own accord. Only a justice has legal authority to deny cases.”

    “One attorney, Donofrio, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding obstruction. It’s unclear where that complaint is.”

    What evidence? Would you please provide a source for your above comment. Besides Donofrio and Orly, who are the other attorneys?

    I’ve only seen three articles, besides Orly’s and all were regarding Donofrio. I’d like to see the evidence please.

  59. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Vincent Omnia Veritas,

    Sarcasm duly noted.

    -Phil

  60. 03/13/2009Jenni says:

    “Dr Orly” is a gift to the Democratic party. I am sure you have read this somewhere before. I am hoping you venture out and read something other than tin hat websites, but there are a lot of people who believe that the main reason that Obama has not produced another copy of the birth certificate (yes, he did produce one which one of your “interent experts” has deemed is a forgery) is that the Democrats want this to continue. It is laughable. The reason you do not get any support from the moderate Republicans is that they are very aware that this whole issue, especially where nutcases like Orly are involved, is making a fool of the Republican party. Orly has been telling this outrageous story all over the internet on how Scalia did not remember the case and that he kept repeating..”there has to be four to hear the case…” she claims that he was trying to “tell her something”. I have emailed with TWO different reporters that were right there when Orly claims this all happened and they claim that it is absolutely untrue. Yes, she did approach him with some gibberish, but Scalia dismissed her quickly and paid no attention to her at all. This is a dream for the Dems…this crazy woman with the internet law degree annoying a supreme court justice on a book tour. Keep encouraging her. I do not know of one Democrat that wants her to go away :-)
    Jenni
    P.S. I LOVE the new appeal…perfect! Thanks, Orly.

  61. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    Well, for any kind of eligibility-related issues, that’s true. And it happened before in 2004, so the clerks know it’s an excellent stall tactic, one that’s effective in missing important deadlines such as elections, electoral college, etc.

  62. 03/13/2009JeffM says:

    We should ask scotus just how many cases are mishandled in general throughout the year. After all we want to make sure the mishandling is not just being done on political cases such as these. That way we can ensure 90% legal incompetence.

    I have a feeling they aren’t. Otherwise I think we’d hear about it more often.

  63. 03/13/2009Practical Kat says:

    Jeff, you are mistaken. The court clerks have both the authority and the duty to reject filings that are not in proper form.

    They will reject Orly’s latest document — the Court rules REQUIRE them to do so:

    4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule.

    Rule 44: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/44.html

    This filing is very clearly “out of time” so it will of course be rejected.

  64. 03/13/2009Obot 1024 says:

    “You might want to do some research on this. Bickell has denied 2 other cases besides Orly’s and both attorneys have evidence Bickell flat out denied the cases on his own accord. Only a justice has legal authority to deny cases.”

    Orly’s word has been shown to be quite worthless so when telling people to do research its best to have something more than what she told you.

    “One attorney, Donofrio, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding obstruction. It’s unclear where that complaint is.”

    Donofrio also claimed he was under surveillance by homeless people who tracked him via the rfid in his passport.

  65. 03/13/2009Phil says:

    Jenni,

    Two things:

    1. This issue isn’t going to go away, if for no other reason that it’s shameful that we, as a nation, have never recognized the need to legally enforce eligibility. Of course, with the dear Congressman from Florida officially introducing an eligibility bill in Congress, methinks the party’s just getting started;

    2. People like me don’t really care what “moderates” have to say on most issues; like President Reagan, I don’t believe in painting in mild pastels, but rather in bold colors.

    -Phil

  66. 03/14/2009Practical Kat says:

    . After all, she has been admitted as an attorney

    Which is why she should be held to the simple standard of understanding the law and legal procedures.

  67. 03/14/2009Bob says:

    However, I think my site has situated itself as a “moderate” site.

    If the only three site were yours, Taitz’s, and fightthesmears, then, sure. In the larger scheme? Not so much. (And what happened to painting in bold colors?)

    This means that — as an example — while I question the President’s eligibility, I am actually open to consider official word on the matter that he is eligible.

    What a convenient goalpost, considering there’s presently no “official” word that will satisfy your question.

    Yet, in the meantime, I shall not presume anyone to automatically be eligible for the title of President until they can prove that they are eligible!

    To your subjective satisfaction, regardless of the reasonable of said satisfaction.

  68. 03/14/2009Bob says:

    justice should not be served and clerks can do whatever they want to applications and cases without a judge ever seeing it.

    Considering the source of the clerks-gone-wild allegations, there’s, shall we say, room for doubt.

    Orly has an excellent question of “have you even reviewed my case???”

    It was denied at conference in January, so, yes, it was.

  69. 03/14/2009Bob says:

    I have never said that she was or wasn’t receiving “special,” as you’ve characterized it, treatment.

    When discussing Taitz’s case, you did say, “Do you expect to have the Clerks follow protocol for your case to the “T,” so that your case, no matter how much others feel it may be outlandish, is handled just like any other case? Of course you would.” The implication that Taitz’s case is not being handled like others.

  70. 03/14/2009Bob says:

    Aw, Bob, you don’t like the term that I coined?

    No; it is clunky and lacks pazazz.

    I’ll let you decide if you think you fall under the term.

    Since it unclear that anyone believes what you think these “illegitimizers” (whoever they are) believe, it is unclear who, if anyone, you are trying to refer to.

  71. 03/14/2009Bob says:

    Credit where credit is due:

    Taitz is one dedicated stalker.

  72. 03/14/2009Sharon 2 says:

    I really wonder if Bob actually reads the material you post, Phil, considering that the update about Orly was directly above his stalking comment.

  73. 03/14/2009Phil says:

    Sharon 2,

    I really wonder if Bob actually reads the material you post, Phil, considering that the update about Orly was directly above his stalking comment.

    Based on the amount of time he took to post his follow up comment to my comment with my three postings, I highly doubt it, unless he’s using a T1 connection for the Internet and can read through a few pages’ worth of material by clicking on the vertical scroll bar and scrolling without a break.

    -Phil

  74. 03/14/2009MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Justice Ginsberg has suggested that there may be a vacancy on the SCOTUS in the near future. What happens to cases heard while a seat is vacant and end up 4 to 4?

    Thanks, Ken

  75. 03/14/2009JeffM says:

    Practical Kat,

    NO CLERK is allowed to deny applications themselves for emergency under Rule 23 without authorization from a justice. Period. End of story.

    That means denial of applications based on 23.3 must be done by a justice. This did not occur in Donofrio’s case nor with Wrotnowski’s case. Bickell should be fired.

  76. 03/14/20091Lishell says:

    Typically if a case is going to be 4-4, they hold it over for reargument when the new justice is seated. If it can’t wait and there was a 4-4 split, the lower court decision would be upheld.

  77. 03/14/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    The ruling of the court below stands.

  78. 03/14/2009Phil says:

    JeffM,

    NO CLERK is allowed to deny applications themselves for emergency under Rule 23 without authorization from a justice. Period. End of story.

    That means denial of applications based on 23.3 must be done by a justice. This did not occur in Donofrio’s case nor with Wrotnowski’s case. Bickell should be fired.

    Congratulations! Either you have read the three main posts I made back when the Supreme Court Clerk was engaging in potential case mishandling or you simply knew for a fact that this occurred.

    As I’ve said before: bureaucrats should be held to account just as much as elected officials.

    -Phil

  79. 03/14/2009Practical Kat says:

    NO CLERK is allowed to deny applications themselves for emergency under Rule 23 without authorization from a justice. Period. End of story.

    The Clerk can and should refuse FILING of applications that do not conform to the requirements of Rules 22, Rule 29, and Rule 33.2. This could be something like not having the requisite numbers of copies, or a proper proof of service, exceeding page limits, etc.

    That means denial of applications based on 23.3 must be done by a justice. This did not occur in Donofrio’s case nor with Wrotnowski’s case.

    Both the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases were TWICE submitted to to justices and TWICE denied, the 2nd time around by concurrence of all 9 justices — this is evident from the docket:
    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

    When a litigant runs into “clerk” problems, its the mark of an amateur. There are a lot of rules that have to be followed to get a pleading in proper form; experienced lawyers know these rules and comply with them — but pro se litigants and inexperienced attorneys are more likely to run afoul of the rules.

    I’d note that technically, the Donofrio/Wrotnowski cases could not be pursued as applications for a “stay”. A “stay” is an order of an appellate court suspending the operation of an affirmative order of a lower court — example: in Bush v. Gore the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount to take place, and SCOTUS issued a “stay” which stopped the recount.

    In order to get a “stay”, you need an underlying court order that directs some action to take place. In the Donofrio & Wrotnowski cases, the underlying cases had been dismissed, so there was no order to be “stayed”. What Donofrio really wanted was an injunction, to be issued upon the court’s original jurisdiction, not a “stay”. That would not be governed by Rule 23, but rather by Rules 20, 33, 34 & 14.

    This is why the so-called “clerk problem” really is just evidence of ineptitude of the attorneys. I don’t fault Donofrio — he doesn’t claim to be an experienced lawyer — but that doesn’t change the fact that whatever problems he experienced were the result of his own mistakes or misunderstandings. (Not that it would have made a difference — Donofrio’s applications would have been denied in any case since they failed to raise a justiciable federal question, as he was seeking to enjoin state officials from performing acts governed by state law).

  80. 03/14/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    I’ve gotta say, you have absolutely no clue about which you’re speaking.

    How do I know? Because you need to fully read — not just scan — but actually read the following postings as found on this site:

    Wednesday, November 12, 2008: Donofrio v. Wells: SCOTUS Clerk Office Playing Politics?

    Sunday, November 23, 2008: Donofrio Forwards Misconduct Allegations Against SCOTUS Stay Clerk Danny Bickell to Chief Justice Roberts

    Wednesday, November 26, 2008: Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Clerk Bickell Allegedly Obstructing Justice on Another Emergency Stay Application

    Based on the above, there is absolutely no evidence of the following:

    The Clerk can and should refuse FILING of applications that do not conform to the requirements of Rules 22, Rule 29, and Rule 33.2. This could be something like not having the requisite numbers of copies, or a proper proof of service, exceeding page limits, etc.

    Further, you may also peruse the following site:

    http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

    This site was Mr. Donofrio’s original site that includes copious amounts of documentation and data, to include the notes that Mr. Donofrio had taken every step of the way in terms of properly filing his paperwork.

    Before you or anyone feels the need to in any way to downplay the experiences of Mr. Donofrio or Mr. Wrotnowski — not to mention Dr. Taitz — said interested parties really need to read through everything to which I’ve referenced.

    Things are alleged to have actually happened and Mr. Donofrio followed up on this (as I’ve referenced) with an official complaint against the Clerk regarding misconduct. At this point, I don’t know what the status of that filing is.

    -Phil

  81. 03/14/2009Practical Kat says:

    Phil wrote:

    Either you have read the three main posts I made back when the Supreme Court Clerk was engaging in potential case mishandling or you simply knew for a fact that this occurred.

    I tried to dig up what you wrote “back when” and came up with this post:
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=773

    in which I found that the gist of the problem with the clerk was this piece of advice:

    He then went on to tell me that since I had asked for an “injunction” in the NJ Supreme Court, then I needed to request an “injunction” in the US Supreme Court as well

    As I explained in my previous post (time stamp: 10:45pm) – this is an absolutely correct statement of law and procedure. Donofrio could not properly seek a “stay” of request for injunction that had been denied by the NJ Supreme Court — the only avenue open to him would be to essentially renew his writ application in the US Supreme Court.

    As near as I can reconstruct things, rather than heeding the clerk’s excellent and true advice as to procedure, Donofrio went into a snit and enlisted the help of his “supporters” via this blog and his own. You all succeeded in annoying the clerk so much that the clerk relented and passed the procedurally improper “Application for Stay” on to Justice Souter, who of course had no choice but to deny it, given his total lack of jurisdiction to do anything else.

    From what I can tell, this little exercise managed to run out the clock from November 6 through December 8th, when Donofrio’s second improper stay action was denied, only 7 days before the Constitutionally-mandated meeting of the electoral college. Since Donofrio chose to get angry rather than listen to the excellent advice he was given, he apparently repeated the same error in the Wrotnowski case, again applying for a “stay” when he needed to file a petition for an “injunction”.

  82. 03/14/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    The links are available for all to see, and I’m not going to take the time to walk through all of the documentation, step-by-step, with you at this time. However, the following does need addressing:

    You all succeeded in annoying the clerk so much that the clerk relented and passed the procedurally improper “Application for Stay” on to Justice Souter, who of course had no choice but to deny it, given his total lack of jurisdiction to do anything else.

    Mr. Donofrio’s case at the State level had been alleged to not have been properly handled (again, evidence is in the links as provided). Yet, even if the case was properly handled at the State level, I find it interesting that you simultaneously turn around and actually purport that the Clerk is going to purposefully sidestep the rules of the Court simply because a bunch of common citizens were “annoying” him. I don’t buy that at all.

    Therefore, according to your logic, I can only conclude that the Clerk truly had at least as many issues following protocol as you claim that folks such as Mr. Donofrio had issues with said Clerk.

    Unless, of course, there is protocol that stipulates how Clerks are to handle “annoying” third-party entities!

    -Phil

  83. 03/14/2009Practical Kat says:

    This site was Mr. Donofrio’s original site that includes copious amounts of documentation and data, to include the notes that Mr. Donofrio had taken every step of the way in terms of properly filing his paperwork

    If he filed an “application for stay” – no matter how he did it, it was the wrong kind of application to bring.

    A litigant can NEVER appeal from or seek a “stay” of a denial of a petition for extraordinary relief (prohibition, mandamus, injunction, etc.) in the lower court — they ALWAYS have to bring a renewed petition.

    Donofrio is living proof of the adage, “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”.

    Donofrio should have sought out the advice of an experienced appellate lawyer to help him understand procedural rules. Instead he blogged. The results stand for themselves.

  84. 03/15/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    Again, the bottom line for you is that you obviously have not taken the time to read through the data I have provided. I can’t make you do that, but I can say that your conclusion is completely off base with the facts as they happened at the time that the events with the SCOTUS Clerk took place.

    -Phil

  85. 03/15/2009Practical Kat says:

    you obviously have not taken the time to read through the data I have provided.

    Phil, I was following the events as reported by Dononfrio on his blog as they took place — I don’t need another person’s take on it to know what was going on.

    Donofrio is a smart guy, but he is not an experienced lawyer and he did not understand the correct procedures.

    Experienced lawyers understand the role that court clerks play and treat them with respect — clerks can be very helpful because they know the procedures and have day-to-day experience with the practical side of things.

    Donofrio could not get relief from the US Supreme Court in any case, because he elected to pursue an action in state court against a state public official. Because the action was dismissed for lack of standing, an appeal was limited to determining the state standing issue. This is not a federal question; thus there would have been no grounds for certiorari (See Rule 10)

    In other words, even if he had filed the correct papers, he would have lost. So if his goal was simply to attract attention to himself and/or his cause – then I suppose he succeeded, and it made sense to want to go the simplest route to make that happen. But if he ever expected the court to act, then he would have needed to submit the papers that would enable action to take place. He didn’t do that.

    Donofrio mistakenly thought he could ask for a “stay” — but as I have noted, he did not understand the difference between a “stay” and an “injunction” — a misconception also shared by Orly. There is a huge difference between the two remedies, both substantively and procedurally — and even if Donofrio had raised a federal question, he effectively cut off all chances of relief by not filing the paperwork necessary for an injunction, as opposed to stay.

    I don’t know how to make this more clear. Donofrio filed the wrong thing for what he wanted, and rather than listen to the one person who was available to talk to him who understands these procedures backwards and forwards (the “stay clerk”) – he pushed back and argued. He has now apparently filed a “complaint” against someone who was properly doing his job, apparently based on the misapprehension that court clerks are required to file every piece of paper that comes their way, whether in proper form or not. (Again, Orly seems to have the same misunderstanding).

    So what do these lawyers have to show for their efforts? A long string of rather automatic denials. This leads to the rather comical scenario of Orly being stunned and surprised that Scalia didn’t remember her case, because she mistakenly assumed that the listing of a case on a court’s conference calendar meant that it was up for serious consideration and discussion — when in fact it is often simply a procedural step along the way to dismissal.

  86. 03/15/2009Practical Kat says:

    Here’s a short question for you Phil:

    What is your understanding of the difference between a “stay” and an “injunction”?

  87. 03/15/2009Practical Kat says:

    RULE NUMBER 1 of the US SUPREME COURT:

    SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. – RULES

    Rule 1. Clerk

    1. The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.

    (emphasis added)
    See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/1.html

    It doesn’t get more clear than that.

  88. 03/16/2009Phil says:

    Practical Kat,

    Here’s a short question for you Phil:

    What is your understanding of the difference between a “stay” and an “injunction”?

    My interpretation does not matter, as the citings to which I directed you and everyone else were “by permission” verbatim copies of what Mr. Donofrio had posted on his many sites. In other words, they speak for themselves.

    -Phil

  89. 03/17/2009Bob says:

    Based on the amount of time he took to post his follow up comment to my comment with my three postings, I highly doubt it

    Or: I read it the first time ’round, and didn’t need a refresher.

  90. 03/17/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    Or: I read it the first time ’round, and didn’t need a refresher.

    Then you have both my apologies and my gratitude for having been involved with these issues from nearly the beginning.

    -Phil

  91. 05/6/2009Mark D. Bergman says:

    I have been reading this story and it would appear that everyone is missing the big picture. The clerk was lying to people, if the clerk was acting within the rules then tell people that, do not make-up issues. Clerks do not have the jursidiction to not record matters and then lie about what they did or did not do. I had something really close to this same thing happen to one of my motions in a district court. It is not funny nor something to take lightly, because in bad form or not the clerk does not have the right to lie.

Write a comment:

You have to log in to write a comment.