The Stoopidest Thing Taitz Has Ever Done

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:33 pm

tjh wrote:

There's still time for her to be a write-in candidate for House or Senate (according to MY reading of CA electoral rules) ... but which to choose?

She'd have to be in the house to impeach, but in the senate to try them ....

Would she be running for B-1 Bob's old seat in the House?

muldrake · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:36 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Somebody asked me a good question last night and I do not know the answer (with certainty), as I have never filed an Application for Emergency Stay with SCOTUS (I'll bet not many lawyers have):
Does a Supreme Court Justice actually physically sign a stay (or denial), or Is their name printed (typed)? Anyone?

The applicable rule from the Supreme Court Rules:

Quote:

Rule 23. Stays

1. A stay may be granted by a Justice as permitted by law.
2. A party to a judgment sought to be reviewed may present to a Justice an application to stay the enforcement of that judgment. See 28 U. S. C. §2101(f).
3. An application for a stay shall set out with particularity why the relief sought is not available from any other court or judge. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, an application for a stay will not be entertained unless the relief requested was first sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge or judges thereof. An application for a stay shall identify the judgment sought to be reviewed and have appended thereto a copy of the order and opinion, if any, and a copy of the order, if any, of the court or judge below denying the relief sought, and shall set out specific reasons why a stay is justified. The form and content of an application for a stay are governed by Rules 22 and 33.2 .
4. A judge, court, or Justice granting an application for a stay pending review by this Court may condition the stay on the filing of a supersedeas bond having an approved surety or sureties. The bond will be conditioned on the satisfaction of the judgment in full, together with any costs, interest, and damages for delay that may be awarded. If a part of the judgment sought to be reviewed has already been satisfied, or is otherwise secured, the bond may be conditioned on the satisfaction of the part of the judgment not otherwise secured or satisfied, together with costs, interest, and damages.

I'd assume that a Justice would grant it by signing it, but that "signing" it could include instructing a clerk to stamp his signature on it or otherwise use some approved procedure. I'm not sure what the preferred procedure would be. I'd be pretty certain that even if they did grant such an application in a case like this, they'd insist on a bond. The imposition of $20,000 in sanctions against a screeching lunatic is no emergency. In fact, they refused to grant a stay in the case of Pennzoil v. Texaco, when the supersedeas bond required by a state court was $13 billion, an amount which at the time (and probably currently) exceeded the bonding capacity of the entire planet. That Obly thinks her measly $20,000 is somehow an emergency just shows the depth of her narcissism and general stupidity.

Myron · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:44 pm **Posts:** 610

tjh wrote:

raicha wrote:

Seems to me the clerk has only two choices: 1) Reject it out of hand as a defective, unfileable pleading, or 2) Treat it as general correspondence to the Justice.

Since it's a MOTION I don't think it's general correspondence. They could push it back for format/factual errors (wrong case numbers ....) ... but if it ever passes THAT then I think they'll have to docket it. As to whether it would be a new docket number, or one of the two referenced docket numbers, I have no idea.

Either way, it'll come back DENIED as quickly as the creaky old docket system will handle it.

And then ... she'll have to start a new campaign to impeach the entire Supreme Court.

I think they will have to treat it as a motion but deny it for violating Rule 21.

Quote:

1. Every motion to the Court shall clearly state its purpose and the facts on which it is based and may present legal argument in support thereof. No separate brief may be filed. A motion should be concise and shall comply with any applicable page limits. Rule 22 governs an application addressed to a single Justice.

While she clearly states her purpose and is attempting some kind of motion, it's a completely made up motion.

It would be like filing a motion to the court demanding that Justice Alito make and then deliver General Tso's Chicken to my house.

raicha · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:47 pm

Quote:

It would be like filing a motion to the court demanding that Justice Alito make and then deliver General Tso's Chicken to my house.

Yeah, that's kinda what I mean. Merely calling something a motion doesn't make it a motion. In these parts, there must be legal grounds and factual basis.

She tosses in her alleged "facts" but cites no legal grounds, instead declaring there is none to provide in this "case of first impression".

But anyhoo, if the clerk dockets it, it will be headed for quick extinction, I'll agree.

muldrake · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:56 pm

Myron wrote:

It would be like filing a motion to the court demanding that Justice Alito make and then deliver General Tso's Chicken to my house.

I should try that. Except I think I'd rather have him order me a Triple-Decker Special from Hobby's Delicatessen on the corner of Halsey and Branford, then walk it over to me. This shouldn't be too much of an imposition. I know he knows the place, since there's a picture of him on the wall, and he used to stop there all the time when he was on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. My legal basis for this is Marbury v. Madison. You know, the part about judges being public servants, or something like that. Whatever. I don't need cites. What I need is a nice sandwich.

twinx · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:58 pm

Myron wrote:

It would be like filing a motion to the court demanding that Justice Alito make and then deliver General Tso's Chicken to my house.

Thanks to everyone for their excellent comments (both lawyerly and funny) on Orly's latest pile of poop.

TerribleTom · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:41 pm **Posts:** 669

TexasFilly wrote:

Somebody asked me a good question last night and I do not know the answer (with certainty), as I have never filed an Application for Emergency Stay with SCOTUS (I'll bet not many lawyers have):
Does a Supreme Court Justice actually physically sign a stay (or denial), or Is their name printed (typed)? Anyone?

I can't say I have any direct experience with U.S. Supreme Court emergency stays either, but I believe that wet-ink signatures of Federal appellate judges in general are pretty rare. From what I've seen, the circuit courts of appeals and the Supreme Court do most of their ordering and their certifying through the clerks. Things like the disposition of motions, judgments and mandates are, I believe, nearly always issued on the clerk's letterhead on behalf of the court. The clerk (or deputy) identifies the panel, judge or Justice making the ruling and, where appropriate, references the printed opinion.

Here's a good specimen from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Whether SCOTUS keeps a behind-the-scenes paper trail with initials and/or signatures on original documents is an interesting question, though. Someone who's clerked for an SC justice would no doubt know.

Thinking about emergency stays, I'm reasonably sure that justices sometimes grant and sign stays when time is of the essence and especially when the Court is not in session. For example, when an individual justice grants a midnight stay of execution of a death warrant, there's no time to engage the Court's bureaucracy or to risk anything getting lost in an in-box. My bet is that, in genuine emergencies, the individual justice is likely to sign it personally, leaving no doubt as to the identity or the authority of the source.

****

By now, Orly's seen plenty of orders from the trial courts where judges DO release signed orders. My bet is that she's just assuming that if district court judges sign orders, then Supreme Court Justices must sign all of their own orders and opinions too. Sigh.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:53 pm

TerribleTom wrote:

Thinking about emergency stays, I'm reasonably sure that justices sometimes grant and sign stays when time is of the essence and especially when the Court is not in session. For example, when an individual justice grants a midnight stay of execution of a death warrant, there's no time to engage the Court's bureaucracy or to risk anything getting lost in an in-box. My bet is that, in genuine emergencies, the individual justice is likely to sign it personally, leaving no doubt as to the identity or the authority of the source.

While I can't speak for SCOTUS, even in this extreme case this is unlikely. If the justice grants the stay, the clerk would then most likely call the parties and orally relay the order, certify the order for the court, enter it into the docket, and then fax the order. (And these courts have been around for ages; they have plans on how to process emergencies that come in during off-hours.)

And I really, really don't see a warden pulling a Taitz and saying, "How do we know Justice Thomas really signed this? Flip the switch, Andy!"

TerribleTom · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:41 pm **Posts:** 669

bob wrote:

And I really, really don't see a warden pulling a Taitz and saying, "How do we know Justice Thomas really signed this? Flip the switch, Andy!"

You saying I've watched too many black-and-white movies from the 30s and 40s? Hah, you're probably right. Dirty rat!

bob · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:27 pm

Further circumstantial evidence that Thomas didn't sign Taitz's denial order: When not visiting America's WalMart's parking lots in his RV, Thomas was in Utah last Saturday.

(But if Holder can be in Georgia and Los Angeles at the same time....)

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:42 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Somebody asked me a good question last night and I do not know the answer (with certainty), as I have never filed an Application for Emergency Stay with SCOTUS (I'll bet not many lawyers have):
Does a Supreme Court Justice actually physically sign a stay (or denial), or Is their name printed (typed)? Anyone?

Well, I do have some experience with this (appellate work, including to SCOTUS, is 90% of my practice and, I'm sorry to say that I'm very well acquainted with the denial of stay applications :oops:

). And the answer is "Yes," the Justice actually signs the application for stay--at least in the case where s/he denies it.

SCOTUS rule 22.4 applies here:

Rules of the Court wrote:

Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.
2. The original and two copies of any application addressed to an individual Justice shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2, and shall be accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29.
3. An application shall be addressed to the Justice allotted to the Circuit from which the case arises. An application arising from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces shall be addressed to the Chief Justice. When the Circuit Justice is unavailable for any reason, the application addressed to that Justice will be distributed to the Justice then available who is next junior to the Circuit Justice; the turn of the Chief Justice follows that of the most junior Justice.
4. [highlight]A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon.[/highlight] Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29.
5. A Justice to whom an application for a stay or for bail is submitted may refer it to the Court for determination.
6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.

What we don't know (because that information in not necessarily included on the docket notation, although it's not terribly unusual for applications denied "without prejudice for renewal" to show that notation in the docket...if there is no "with/without prejudice" notation on the docket with the application denial, you just don't know unless you're a party/attorney in that case) is whether or not Justice Thomas denied Oily's application for stay with prejudice (again, see Rule 22.4 for why this matters). Oily would know (it is part of the notification of disposition she would receive from the Clerk), but I seriously doubt that she even knows what "with prejudice" means, or that she would care, if someone explained it to her.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:48 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:

Well, I do have some experience with this (appellate work, including to SCOTUS, is 90% of my practice and, I'm sorry to say that I'm very well acquainted with the denial of stay applications :oops:

). And the answer is "Yes," the Justice actually signs the application for stay--at least in the case where s/he denies it.

Could you post a (redacted) order, so we can all see what the actual order looks like?

TerribleTom · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:41 pm **Posts:** 669

Paul Lentz wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Somebody asked me a good question last night and I do not know the answer (with certainty), as I have never filed an Application for Emergency Stay with SCOTUS (I'll bet not many lawyers have):
Does a Supreme Court Justice actually physically sign a stay (or denial), or Is their name printed (typed)? Anyone?

Well, I do have some experience with this (appellate work, including to SCOTUS, is 90% of my practice and, I'm sorry to say that I'm very well acquainted with the denial of stay applications :oops:

). And the answer is "Yes," the Justice actually signs the application for stay--at least in the case where s/he denies it.

Well there ya go! Thanks, Paul.

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:30 pm

bob wrote:

Paul Lentz wrote:

Well, I do have some experience with this (appellate work, including to SCOTUS, is 90% of my practice and, I'm sorry to say that I'm very well acquainted with the denial of stay applications :oops:

). And the answer is "Yes," the Justice actually signs the application for stay--at least in the case where s/he denies it.

Could you post a (redacted) order, so we can all see what the actual order looks like?

Bob, there is no "order." You get a notification from the court (it's pretty standard, and I assume it's boilerplate) informing you that the application (for whatever) was denied, by which Justice, and on what date. You don't get an explanation; there's no discussion as to reason(s) for the denial, nor any invitation for any query. You also don't get a copy of the Justice's signature on the application when s/he denies it--that stays in the SCOTUS file.

While I would not post one of the notifications related to any of my clients (the required redactions would remove all but a few words, quite frankly, and I wouldn't be comfortable with doing that in any case), in an earlier birther case, Leo Donofrio shared a copy of his denial notification (in that case, the application denial came through Justice Souter). I can tell you that, with the appropriate changes of pertinent information (Justice name, date, party/attorney names, application number) it's almost, if not exactly, the same as every denial notification I've ever received, so you'll know what one looks like:

You can see it on NBC, here: http://blogtext.org/albums/naturalborncitizen/18692.jpg (click on it to enlarge).

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:39 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:

You can see it on NBC, here: http://blogtext.org/albums/naturalborncitizen/18692.jpg.

Bickell!!! :shock:

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:43 pm

You see this is what pisses me (and the rest of the legal profession) off about Orly. Anyone practicing law at the SCOTUS level doesn't double check their stuff, they don't triple check their stuff, they don't even quadruple check their stuff before filing it, anyone with a modicum of sense checks their stuff at least five times and THEN, they run it by three or four others who can review it before you EVER hit the send button to the printer (the printer you understand, not to the court, you send it to the printer, who then makes sure that it complies with the rules before they ever send it to the court), I sit there with a shaking hand, hovering over the "send" button, reading, rereading, rereading the stuff, do I have the correct attachments? has the boss cited the right cases? Six months later you are reading the brief that you have submitted and you notice that you put a comma where you should have put a period. Your heart goes to ice, you break out in a cold sweat, you suddenly start thinking "will they deny because of that comma?" That is how boots on the ground real legal people live, every day. Orly on the other hand just files a steaming pile of shit and seems to get a pass from the courts. If an "real" attorney filed such a steaming pile of shit with SCOTUS they would be slammed immediately and more than likely sanctioned. It just ain't fair peeps.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:57 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:

You get a notification from the court (it's pretty standard, and I assume it's boilerplate) informing you that the application (for whatever) was denied, by which Justice, and on what date.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, pointing towards Donofrio's denial, and saying that's what you get.

I'm a still a little unclear where you infer that the justice actually "signs" anything. I see the "noted thereon" language, but was hoping for an example of an actual "notation."

With respect to Taitz, Thomas is tooling about in his RV, and was in Utah on Saturday. I presume telephonic briefings while on the road; electronically "signing," also a possibility; but shipping orders to Middleamericaville so Thomas can pick them up, sign them, and ship them back to DC seems to be unnecessary.

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:17 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

That is how boots on the ground real legal people live, every day. Orly on the other hand just files a steaming pile of shit and seems to get a pass from the courts.

Yeah, but you win some of 'em. She doesn't,

OMG, I put a comma instead of a period!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:20 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

You see this is what pisses me (and the rest of the legal profession) off about Orly. Anyone practicing law at the SCOTUS level doesn't double check their stuff, they don't triple check their stuff, they don't even quadruple check their stuff before filing it, anyone with a modicum of sense checks their stuff at least five times and THEN, they run it by three or four others who can review it before you EVER hit the send button to the printer (the printer you understand, not to the court, you send it to the printer, who then makes sure that it complies with the rules before they ever send it to the court), I sit there with a shaking hand, hovering over the "send" button, reading, rereading, rereading the stuff, do I have the correct attachments? has the boss cited the right cases? Six months later you are reading the brief that you have submitted and you notice that you put a comma where you should have put a period. Your heart goes to ice, you break out in a cold sweat, you suddenly start thinking "will they deny because of that comma?" That is how boots on the ground real legal people live, every day. Orly on the other hand just files a steaming pile of shit and seems to get a pass from the courts. If an "real" attorney filed such a steaming pile of shit with SCOTUS they would be slammed immediately and more than likely sanctioned. It just ain't fair peeps.

Exactly.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:28 pm

True Foggy and we win as many as we lose. But at least we do the shit right to begin with, we never lose cause we never comply with the rules. (Okay I admit one time we lost an appeal because idiot paralegal forgot to file the fucking transcript with the court of appeals, when the opinion came down and it was littered with "fails to provide any transcript evidence" you kind of start checking, and then you realise that you didn't fucking file the fucking transcript) As it was the defendant had already declared corporate bankruptcy, and was therefore piss proof. But the bottom line was I forgot to file the transcript. I will never live it down.

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:46 pm

bob wrote:

Paul Lentz wrote:

You get a notification from the court (it's pretty standard, and I assume it's boilerplate) informing you that the application (for whatever) was denied, by which Justice, and on what date.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, pointing towards Donofrio's denial, and saying that's what you get.

I'm a still a little unclear where you infer that the justice actually "signs" anything. I see the "noted thereon" language, but was hoping for an example of an actual "notation."

I "infer" that because I've had the opportunity to actually see the signature (under the notation, "denied") of the Justice on one of my applications. But it was an unusual situation, and occurred while I was visiting a friend who was a clerk for the Justice who had authored that particular denial. Ordinarily, I don't see that sort of thing on my cases. I have no reason to doubt that it is standard procedure.

bob wrote:

With respect to Taitz, Thomas is tooling about in his RV, and was in Utah on Saturday. I presume telephonic briefings while on the road; electronically "signing," also a possibility; but shipping orders to Middleamericaville so Thomas can pick them up, sign them, and ship them back to DC seems to be unnecessary.

FAX, Bob. You're right...none of that is necessary, nor has it been for many years.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:56 pm

An Orlyfan obsequiously pointed out the error in this paragraph:

Quote:

10. Before inauguration, on January 19, 2010 Aplication 08A524 was on the docket of the Supreme Court.

To offset the slight sting of this correction, he had begun with

Quote:

You are absolutely awesome!!! Thank you for fightig our battles and for loving this republic with such passion. Your sacrifices will not be forgotten.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:42 pm

tjh wrote:

And then ... she'll have to start a new campaign to impeach the entire Supreme Court.

I hope the UN is aware of the extra lead time they are getting on the case by being bombarded with cc: copies :mrgreen:

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:49 pm

bob wrote:

And I really, really don't see a warden pulling a Taitz and saying, "How do we know Justice Thomas really signed this? Flip the switch, Andy!"

How do we know that Taitz really signed her own submission to SCOTUS ?

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10670

RTH10260 wrote:

bob wrote:

And I really, really don't see a warden pulling a Taitz and saying, "How do we know Justice Thomas really signed this? Flip the switch, Andy!"

How do we know that Taitz really signed her own submission to SCOTUS ?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

The Stoopidest Thing Taitz Has Ever Done

Who is online