You surely know by now that Justice Clarence Thomas recently denied a request by Orly Taitz to stay a lower court order fining her $20,000 for filing frivolous claims and violating judicial ethics by attacking judges and calling them traitors. Or did he really? Orly thinks there is a conspiracy afoot — that someone else signed those orders, not Thomas. And in fact, that the Supreme Court hasn’t been considering her petitions at all, only pretending to do so while someone else denies them without the knowledge of the justices.
She’s filed a motion to Chief Justice John Roberts demanding that she be allowed to bring a forensic expert to the court to verify the signature of Thomas on that denial of her request, and the signatures of all the justices on earlier denials. You can read it on her website.
Her evidence for all of this? Items being posted to the Supreme Court website when they’re not open, like on Saturdays. Seriously.
1 On July 8 2010 Application for stay of sanctions 10A524 was docketed with the Supreme Court and addressed to Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.
2. On July 16, Friday 2010, around 9PM EST Applicant Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq (hereinafter Taitz) checked the electronic docket of the Supreme court, it showed no answer from Clarence Thomas.
3. On the same day Taitz has issued a press release, stating that there is no answer from Justice Thomas. Above press release was sent to some 28,000 media outlets and some 300,000 individuals.
4. On Saturday July 17, 2010 Taitz started getting comments on her website from some Obama supporters gloating about the fact that Justice Thomas dismissed her application. Originally, Taitz dismissed those as a dumb joke, but as those comments continued, she checked the electronic docket of the Supreme Court and to her amazement found, that somebody made a new entry on Saturday July 17, 2010, and backdated it for Thursday the 15th of July, stating that Justice Thomas dismissed her application.
5. On Saturday the court was closed, Justices and clerks were not there, therefore the applicant has reasonable belief and suspicion, that above entry was not authorized.
It apparently hasn’t occurred to her that perhaps there is just a delay between the time an order is issued and the time it appears on the court’s website, or that anyone could possibly be working outside of regular hours to get things posted. It’s a conspiracy!
She then regales the court with the tale of a previous motion that she had made that was denied by the court, and with a new story about her asking Justice Scalia about it:
14. On January 23, 2009 all nine justices supposedly discussed the case.
15. On January 26, 2009 it was announced that the justices decided not to proceed with oral argument.
16. On March 9, 2009 Justice Scalia was giving a lecture and signing his books in Los Angeles.
17. Taitz attended the lecture, asked Justice Scalia questions during Q and A and later at the book signing asked Justice Scalia, why the case was not heard in oral argument, why wasn’t it heard on the merits. To her amazement, Justice Scalia had no clue the case even existed, he could not remember one word, one thing about the case. When Taitz asked Justice Scalia about other similar cases, he could not remember a thing either, even though he was supposedly the Justice, who referred some of those cases to the conference in the first place, which means that he supposedly read those cases more than once.
This is a whole new version of her story about that Scalia meeting. The Worldnutdaily reported her previous story, where she did not say that Scalia could not remember a thing about the case but that he told her plainly that if a case gets 4 votes, the court will take it up.
Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood “right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them.”
She said, “I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.”
Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.
“I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks,” she said. “I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.
“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.
“He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four,” she said.
She then bought Scalia’s book and waited in line to get it autographed.
“I gave him the books to sign and asked, ‘Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] 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.'”
Not a word from Taitz then about this unexplained ignorance on Scalia’s part. The woman is stark raving nuts. Can you imagine the laughter these filings must provoke? The law clerks at the court must be having a field day with this stuff.