Lightfoot v. Bowen: Dr. Taitz Files Motion to Reconsider, Quo Warranto
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
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.
Bob,
Then you have both my apologies and my gratitude for having been involved with these issues from nearly the beginning.
-Phil
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.
Practical Kat,
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
RULE NUMBER 1 of the US SUPREME COURT:
(emphasis added)
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/1.html
It doesn’t get more clear than that.
Here’s a short question for you Phil:
What is your understanding of the difference between a “stay” and an “injunction”?
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.
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
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.
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:
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
Phil wrote:
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:
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”.
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:
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
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.
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).
JeffM,
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
The ruling of the court below stands.
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.
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.
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
Sharon 2,
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
I really wonder if Bob actually reads the material you post, Phil, considering that the update about Orly was directly above his stalking comment.
Credit where credit is due:
Taitz is one dedicated stalker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is why she should be held to the simple standard of understanding the law and legal procedures.
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
“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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Vincent Omnia Veritas,
Sarcasm duly noted.
-Phil
“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.
You didn’t use IRAC or CREAC format in writing your brief. Bad Ballantine.
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.
One of Phillip Berg’s cases was misfiled also.
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.
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.
Bob,
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
Bob,
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