Rovingpatrol's Blog

Orly Taitz Talks To Justice Scalia

Posted in politics by roving on March 10, 2009

Orly Taitz had a face to face  meeting  with Justice Scalia and asked him a couple questions. The main thing that sticks out is, I get the impression the clerks are sabotaging the cases or Scalia is lying.

“Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”. He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others. I asked,  tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio-  he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember.

If Scalia is being truthful and doesn’t know, I hope he at the least investigates what is going on over there. Orly thinks he is telling the truth but I’m doubtful. How do you not remember something like that?


5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. gayle said, on March 10, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    If the clerks are destroying the cases maybe he didn’t iknow
    Anyway now he knows lets see what he does

  2. ahrcanum said, on March 11, 2009 at 6:46 am

    How did she get an appt w/ him w/ cases pending?

  3. Mike said, on March 11, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    How did she get an appt w/ him w/ cases pending?

    She didn’t; she stalked him at a book signing. Roving Patrol’s headline is inaccurate.

  4. rxsid said, on March 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    furthermore, she doesn’t have a case pending before SCOTUS. Quite unlike the time Barry meet with SCOTUS when they definitely had her case set for hearing before full conference.

    There were a number of times it appeared that SCOTUS clerk Danny Bickel was interfering with the filing of documents (refer to Leo Donofrio’s case for one example).

    Also, it’s entirely possible the the web site docket info system displayed inaccurate information.
    In other words, it’s possible that the ‘webmaster’ or a clerk in charge of updating the web site docket, posted erroneous information (i.e. information about cases that we’re actually never submitted to the justices, and therefore never submitted to full conference…vi-sa-vi Scalia saying he doesn’t know of the others).

    From the SCOTUS web site:

    “Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. ”
    In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between order lists or miscellaneous orders and any later official version of them, the later version controls.”

    The question becomes…has anyone verified the PRINT version of the courts dockets and orders against the web site docket information…for all of the eligibility cases?

  5. rxsid said, on March 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm



    Motion to Reconsider

    Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:

    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.
    On January 8, 2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by the Congress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requesting this Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to the terms of the Constitution.
    According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
    This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timely according to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequent confirmation of Congress.
    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, 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. ”

    Much more here….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: