Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
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.
Politics
Comments
Still waiting for Ms. Taitz or any other birther to present any evidence that the presidents' mother, Ann Dunham was ever in Kenya.
Posted by: SLC | July 29, 2010 10:10 AM
Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar, won't someone get this woman some antipsychotics? It pains me to see someone with so many obvious mental health issues not getting treated.
Posted by: Mara | July 29, 2010 10:15 AM
Of COURSE there's a conspiracy, you sad deluded fool! They talk to each other when the rest of us aren't in earshot! They base their reasoning and decisions on the same set of documents and rules, handed down over centuries (okay, two anyway)! They wear the same clothes to work every day! What more evidence do you Obamabots need?! Christ, use your imagination, it's so obvious!
PS: Can I jump in and preempt the "Oily Titz" jokes? Seriously, what's the point in making fun of the LEAST offensive part of her body? Let's stick to the ugliest part: her brain. All three cells of it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 10:18 AM
Altering a person's name to refer to a part of the body is a time-honored method of showing disrespect and demeaning somebody. If I had to put up with it in junior high than so should Orly Taitz!
Posted by: rob | July 29, 2010 10:28 AM
Imagine being trapped in a dental chair while this fruitcake performs a root canal on you! Oh, the horror!
Posted by: Dogbert | July 29, 2010 10:28 AM
I sometimes wonder how on earth somebody so steamingly stupid ever passed a bar exam. And then I remember that Andy Schlafly is also permitted to practise law in the USA.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | July 29, 2010 10:33 AM
But what about all those trial lawyers who didn't laugh at her????? If that isn't evidence of Kenyan birth, I don't know what is.
I bet none of those trial lawyers know how magnets work either. This is the beginning of the end for the scoffers.
Posted by: xebecs | July 29, 2010 10:40 AM
"Imagine being trapped in a dental chair while this fruitcake performs a root canal on you!"
Imagine if she drilled into your tooth as she digs to uncover conspiracies against her! The drill would come out your jaw!
Thanks for posting this. Watching her unravel is highly entertaining. I CAN'T WAIT for the next level.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | July 29, 2010 10:45 AM
Raging Bee, seeing as the good dentist/lawyer's bosom is, indeed, inoffensive, may I suggest "Oily Taint" instead?
Posted by: Martin | July 29, 2010 10:49 AM
I don't see the slightest evidence for a conspiracy here - Scalia forgetting important information and Thomas signing documents without reading them make it just another normal day at the SCOTUS. =P
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 29, 2010 10:49 AM
Why would I want to do that? Hasn't life treated me harshly enough?
Posted by: Budbear | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM
... Justice Scalia said as he backed slowly out of the room with a smile frozen on his face and his finger carressing the "911" speed dial on his cellphone ...
Posted by: John Pieret | July 29, 2010 11:11 AM
Ahem.
---
A Poem For Orly Taitz
Somewhere in Europe's a village (I pity it)
Consoling itself over losing its idiot.
---
Thank you.
Posted by: Martin C | July 29, 2010 11:36 AM
If I am not mistaken, the federal court that levied those penalties on Orly is also charging interest on that $20K. It's been months since she was slapped with that fine, so the longer she dilly-dallies with her pointless (and incredibly unprofessional) filings, the more money she'll have to pay in the end.
Of course, that's all part of the conspiracy, too. Obama created interest and penalties. It's all part of his evil plot to overthrow America as We Know It.
Posted by: wheatdogg | July 29, 2010 11:37 AM
I'm convinced that Taitz isn't crazy, she's a con-artist. She should be ignored.
Posted by: Taz | July 29, 2010 11:42 AM
You missed the best part. She wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts where she makes the following three “Prayers for relief:”
Apparently she is unaware that the vast majority of orders released by the court are unsigned, yet totally legal.
Again, same thing. Does she actually think that all nine justices sign every denial of cert? All 10,000 cases per term? Furthermore, is she even self aware enough to understand that she is basically insulting the court by saying “I don’t trust you.”
Right. The court is going to allow someone whose own web site is regularly hacked and infested with Russian mal-ware to root around in their computer system.
Posted by: Chilidog | July 29, 2010 12:03 PM
Wow. She truly deserves the title of wingnut.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | July 29, 2010 12:04 PM
Does she think that after a Justice signs or issues an order, it magically and instantaneously appears on the internet (probably through a series of tubes)?
Posted by: Wesley | July 29, 2010 12:24 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 29, 2010 12:47 PM
That's not the only conspiracy afoot. According to her latest post Obama (a "Kenyan communist puppet") is actually part of a plot hatched by George Soros to destroy the American economy.
Posted by: Eric J | July 29, 2010 12:53 PM
Eric J: She probably got that from the Globe, which just now picked up on that old "Kenyan birth certificate" story.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 1:11 PM
Hmmmm! Strong with crazy, this one is.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 1:21 PM
Let's stick to the ugliest part: her brain. All three cells of it.
Besides being an insult to brain cells, and to creatures without a brain (including rocks), it also overestimates the number of brain cells she could possibly have by many many orders of magnitude.
Posted by: blf | July 29, 2010 1:58 PM
Won't someone please get Ms.Taitz some cats? She clearly needs some cats.
Posted by: Art | July 29, 2010 2:04 PM
Where are the men in white coats?
Posted by: Paen | July 29, 2010 2:36 PM
Ed, I would recommend in the future you don't link to her site directly. It's notorious for spreading malware.
Posted by: Alareth | July 29, 2010 3:12 PM
I'd never trust that bitch with cats. She'd only mistreat them, neglect them, and then cry about conspiracies and frame-ups when the animal-welfare folks came and took them off to saner homes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 3:36 PM
Martin C @#13: Your tidy doggerel has just earned you one internet (spend it wisely) and the coveted Brevity Citation of the Minute. And my thanks for the chuckle.
Honestly, is there any other way to deal with this woman than with comedy, satire, travesty and burlesque? I mean, aside from gnashing of teeth and rending of garments and all that?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 29, 2010 3:46 PM
CW, your verbosity and quaint turns of phrases are enchanting as well, to this lover of our colorful lexicon ;)
Posted by: momkat | July 29, 2010 4:17 PM
A large piece of pie to you then, Momkat.
Bacon on the side.
Your napkin is scented with the essence of lodgepole pines and cool rushing water just as the sun rises. Breathe deeply.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 29, 2010 4:41 PM
You know, even if this second story is accurate, so what? All it means is that Justice Scalia didn't remember those particular cases - possibly because he was in the middle of a book signing in March, not a conference about Taitz's case in January.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 29, 2010 5:58 PM
Pah! Typical liberalactivistsupremecourt, sticking up for the so-called "President of the United States"! If they won't let us smear him, we'll have to go after the nigg...socially conscious people around him. We have been? Oh. Carry on then, Breitbart. Beck. O'Reilly. Limbaugh. WND. Tea Party. GOP. Fox 'n' Friends. Fox 'n' Enemies. Fox 'n' Acquaintances. Puss 'n' Boots. Etc. Etc.
Alareth "Ed, I would recommend in the future you don't link to her site directly. It's notorious for spreading malware."
That's not the worst part. Orly Taitz is there, too. I know!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 29, 2010 6:34 PM
What's interesting to me is that she's not just asking to have Justice Thomas verify that he made the decision. She wants an independent verification of his signature, meaning that even if Thomas responded by saying, "Yes, I did do that," she wouldn't accept his word.
As Chilidog noted, she's insulting the Court. She's insulted judicial officials before, and all it's gotten her is reprimands and a fine. But instead of learning she ups the ante and directly insults not just any ol' court, but the U.S. Supreme Court!
And what Ed didn't note is that she also sent this to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Commission for Civil Rights Defenders.
That's some very heavy-duty whackadoo. If she had any (sane) friends, I'd like to think one would point out how self-defeating this action is.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 29, 2010 6:59 PM
There's also this from her motion. Try to make sense of the dates, if you can.
Orly needs a better proofreader.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 29, 2010 7:02 PM
As much as I have enjoyed the general hilarity from this post...Orly is now accusing the SCOTUS staffers of involvement in the conspiracy. That leaves her only one hope for recourse, the SCOTUS justices themselves. And when they ignore or rebuff her, her natural conclusion will be that those nine men and women are also involved.
That would seem to leave her NO legal recourse. Is her insanity strong enough that she would then feel forced into, well...stronger measures? Obviously, she's too incompetent to do anything effective, but it seems possible that she might hurt innocent people in the course of her inevitable failure.
Posted by: BobApril | July 29, 2010 9:25 PM
Having exhausted all recourse in the USA, Orly Taitz returns to her home country and applies for an asylum.
I wish.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | July 29, 2010 10:41 PM
OH NO!! he's been MEMORY WIPED!!!
Omaba's Men in Black used the flashy thing on him.
Posted by: Joe Max | July 30, 2010 3:45 AM
I think Orly hit on Barrack some years ago, and he blew her off. That's why she's so hung up on him.
Flashy-flashy!
Wait, what was I talking about?
Posted by: John Hinkle | July 30, 2010 9:16 AM
Do you think there will every come a day when it dawns on Orly that maybe the entire rest of the world is not involved in one giant conspiracy to hide "the truth" about Obama? That maybe, just maybe, she's the one who is nucking futs?
No, neither do I.
Posted by: greatbear | July 30, 2010 9:43 AM
greatbear, don't even start. We know you're part of the conspiracy.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 30, 2010 10:19 AM