8 Responses to “I got this program, showing that on the 17th when the entry appeared on the docket, Justice Thomas was in UT, giving lecture. I don’t know if it proves anything though, as he could sign an order on the 15th. I am qustioning, though, the fact that it was posted on Sat the 17th. My bigger concern, is the fact that the first case was deleted on inauguration day. who would be working on Inauguration day and deleting cases?”

1. Jules
   July 23rd, 2010 @ 9:42 am

   Justices often make decisions on emergency stays when they are not in chambers. Do you think that they drive to the Court whenever they are awoken by a clerk about an emergency stay in a death penalty case?

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   July 23rd, 2010 @ 11:16 am

   of course not, but you don’t expect somebody staying at the courthouse, deleting cases from the docket on Inauguration day either. You also don’t expect somebody lying about it. You expect justices to be alarmed by it and announcing investigation, you expect a justice to sign an order and forward it to the clerk

3. chris smith
   July 24th, 2010 @ 7:48 am

   FOLLOW THE MONEY. Someone paid off somebody with some big big bucks for that to be done on the day Obama took office. Rememeber, how Obama and the Judge screwed up the “Oath of Office”. That was a sign, that something was wrong and someone at that time should of stood up and said no. Long live the United States of America.

4. Lucius B. Pooser
   July 24th, 2010 @ 8:24 am

   Dr Tait,
   If you paid the fine wouldn’t that give you standing since you would have been personally harmed by the Usurper? See what they did in the 3rd circuit. They dismissed the assessment for frivilous case when Mario indicated he would seek discovery if they assessed attorney’s fees.

5. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   July 24th, 2010 @ 8:42 am

   I asked for discovery, and the damage is imminent, so I do have standing.
   the difference between me and Apuzzo is in that I represent a bigger threat for 2 reasons:
   1. I bring forward his social security fraud,a serious criminal matter
   2. While Apuzzo represents 3-4 retired members of the military,I represent 200, many of whom are active, deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq, I brought cases in Columbus GA, near Fort Benning main deployment base- this is a serious threat, so they had to go harder against me.
   I believe the key to ending this usurpation, is more active military rising and demanding to see Obamas papers. US military can harass one or two officers and their lawyer, but not 10 or a 100. they will have to address this issue and they will have to do it soon

6. Jules
   July 24th, 2010 @ 10:41 am

   Lucius B. Pooser,

   No.

   Standing requires not only an alleged wrong and being individually harmed, but also a close causal link between the two. Sanctions are not directly caused by the alleged ineligibility, as it was Taitz’s conduct that was the basis for the sanctions.

   If sanctions alone could lead to standing, then just about anyone who lacks standing and files a claim would be gain standing by virtue of the fact that they were motivated by the alleged legal wrong and then lost money (in the form of legal costs) as a result.

   Standing is only one hurdle you have to overcome to get discovery. Another is justiciability of the claim. The political question doctrine arguably reserves disputes such as this one to Congress. Specifically, the power of Congress to impeach a President and certify the electoral college vote leave the matter to them.

   Additionally, the principles of collateral estoppel or res judicata would almost certainly prevent the question of the appropriateness of Taitz’s loss of $20,000 to be re-litigated in a new case.

7. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   July 24th, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

   1. I was sanctioned specifically because I was questioning eligibility, nothing else
   2. eligibility is not a political question doctrine, but an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of the fact, it is an issue of fraud committed
   3. the issue was never litigated, so collateral estoppel and res judicata do not apply
   good try though 🙂

8. physical therapist
   July 27th, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

   Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!

Leave a Reply