25 Responses to “it has been nearly 3 years, and there is still no answer from Justice Roberts”

1. Peter
   October 16th, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

   Handing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court two briefcases of papers does not constitute a filing with the Supreme Court. You must file and pay the fees like everyone else. You probably won’t post this because it exposes you for your ineptness as an attorney.

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   October 16th, 2011 @ 8:27 pm

   anyone, who followed my cases knows, that I filed with the Supreme Court repeatedly. you are either unimformed or intentionally trying to misinform others

3. Ralph
   October 16th, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

   @Peter I think you need to read up on all the cases Dr Taitz has filed with Supreme Court you will find she filed as she was supposed to. Dr Taitz I read the disturbing news from Hawaii am a little stunned as to what happened.

4. Beta
   October 16th, 2011 @ 11:28 pm

   No answer is an answer.

5. Preston
   October 17th, 2011 @ 3:57 am

   Peter, God bless you, sir, you are WAY behind the curve on this issue.

   Justice Scalia told Dr. Taitz face to face that one must have 4 justices in conference that are willing to take any case that is filed. There are not 4 who are willing to let the evidence be presented in case after case after case.

   Justice Thomas in testimony before the U.S. House stated: “we are avoiding the issue.” He was commenting on citizenship requirements for the office of POTUS.

   EVERYONE in D.C. KNOWS that Soetoro, or Bounel, or whoever this guy really is, is not qualified to be POTUS. He does not look like any of the Obama family that I have seen. Whose kid is he, really?

   Both judiciary and legislative branches of the U. S. are hiding from this issue because they are scared to death of the possible consequences of the truth being known.

   Of course the executive branch is in progressive, socialist, communist control under the current occupier of the Oval office.

   The entire system is completely compromised.

   Not a single case has been tried on its merits.

   The whole system is hoping, hoping, hoping that this will just go away with the end of the current presidential term.

   Despicable and disgusting, the entire lot of them.

6. Bob J
   October 17th, 2011 @ 4:11 am

   Filing is much different from proper filing.

   Peter is right

7. Chum Lee
   October 17th, 2011 @ 6:11 am

   Preston,

   (I said I would not post). Several things to clear up.

   1) As for Scalia – he is correct. The Supreme Court has the discretion to take cases. If they did not they would need to rule on thousands upon thousands of cases per year. They pick about 100 or so. The general practice is that 4 justices need to informally agree for cert to be granted – accepting a case.

   2) The Thomas comment is taken out of context. There has been a long running joke between Thomas and the Rep from Puerto Rico regarding a run for the Whitehouse. The THomas comment was specifically in regards to that limited issue regarding Puerto Rican birth, and in the context of a long running joke.

   3) I saw the video of Roberts, and it appeared that he simply took Orly’s information to quiet her down. I doubt he ever looked at it, nor did he have a duty to look at it. That is my opinion.

   4) Evidence is never heard before the Supreme Court. It only handles legal issues. Debating over facts is limited to the trial court. Generally issues appear at the Supreme Court on cases originally dismissed or failed due to summary judgment – which includes its own factual standard.

8. William
   October 17th, 2011 @ 7:17 am

   Preston,

   Very true words.

   I would add, that the United States would also become the laughing stock of the world once the fraud is exposed. It also is the largest National Security Breach in the History of this Country as well.

   These two issues alone are what compromise any politician from exposing the fraud.

9. William
   October 17th, 2011 @ 8:29 am

   Chum Lee,

   I agree with your comment with the exception to your second point.

   Yes, there has been prior standing humor between Justice Thomas and Rep. Jose Serrano. Jose raised the question during discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary. As Jose stated, “I’m still waiting for the court decision on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States.”

   Key emphasis is on “President”, which had nothing to do with the SCOTUS annual Budget.

   Call it “fishing” or “feeling” out for information all one likes, but the question itself was outside the scope of past discussions.

   As Supreme Court Justice Thomas replied in direct response, “That’s another issue.”

   Thomas also responded to Rep. Jose Serrano that he would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court rather than a chair in the Oval Office.

   Rep Jose then quipped “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

   Thomas replied: “We’re evading that one,” referring to questions of presidential eligibility, We’re giving you another option.

   Out of context?

   I don’t believe so,

10. William
    October 17th, 2011 @ 8:44 am

    Obama,

    Is nothing more than an Affirmative Action experiment – gong horribly wrong…

    – William

11. William
    October 17th, 2011 @ 8:45 am

    Obama,

    Is nothing more than an Affirmative Action experiment – gone horribly wrong…

    – William

12. Patty
    October 17th, 2011 @ 8:51 am

    Orly, it has been so long — remind us what you gave Justice Roberts. Was it a case to be heard? A brief? A petition? A motion?

13. Chantal
    October 17th, 2011 @ 9:44 am

    William,

    this may shock you, 😉 but the ENTIRE world has LONG 🙁 been aware that Hussein is not only NOT an American citizen, but a usurper
    in-eligible to even speak in the White House, much less occupy it.. 😉

14. Chantal
    October 17th, 2011 @ 9:56 am

    ..I should read before hitting that ‘send’ button.. 🙁

    Trust me William, the entire world HAS been laughing at us for quite some time.. 🙂

    Friends & relatives in Europe can get News that is NOT allowed to stream through the airwaves in the US! 🙁

    So much for the “free”.. 😉 If we actually had some of the “brave” stuff in the Courts, Media & Government, we wouldn’t have Muslims [you don’t believe Mitch is a Christian, do you?] squatting in OUR White House.. 🙁

15. Communist Coup
    October 17th, 2011 @ 10:04 am

    I’m a Communist OWS revolutionary. My group is determined to destroy this country and rebuild it. What do you intend to do to stop me? I’m locked and loaded, as are the majority of my Communist companions. We wont hesitate to bring this to the next level if you keep threatening us or get in our way.

16. The Truth
    October 17th, 2011 @ 11:31 am

    Great post Preston!

    Chum Lee: one of the many who try to come up with any excuse to defend this fraud. Your comment assumes the Supreme Court lives in a bubble and knows nothing about this issue.”nor did he have a duty to look at it”. If you really believe that, and think that all of us do too, you are way off base. Despicable!

17. Chum Lee
    October 17th, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

    William:

    I do believe the question, even if serious, was limited to a Puerto Rican being eligible to be President. So, yes, out of context.

    The Truth – tell me what you know about practice before the Supreme Court? What did I describe that is incorrect? Please provide the basis (rules, cases, canons of ethics that would have compelled Roberts to act). Learn from William – he can disagree without being nasty, and actually gives a rationale for his statements.

18. Chantal
    October 17th, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

    Communist Coup, you spend way TOO much time in your mother’s basement.. 😉

19. Paul Jackson
    October 17th, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

    @ The Truth…

    “Your comment assumes the Supreme Court lives in a bubble and knows nothing about this issue.”

    No, it doesn’t.

    “”nor did he have a duty to look at it”. If you really believe that, and think that all of us do too, you are way off base. Despicable!”

    Yes, many know you don’t believe it, or many other truthful things, but the fact it that is a true statement.

20. rosemary
    October 17th, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

    Roberts is as dirty as Obama, and BTW Romney is one of them!
    http://www.tdark.cabal.com

21. rosemary
    October 17th, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    sorry. http://www.tdarkcabal.blogspot.com

22. Extirpates
    October 17th, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

    Patty, have you ever heard of this thing called the internet?
    Great for doing research, may I suggest GOYA* and do it yourself!

    * Get Off Your As*

23. The Truth
    October 17th, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

    Communist Crap,
    You sound like a 40 year old virgin that lives in his mothers basement that plays video games all day.

    You can’t be serious.

    William,
    Another informative and well said comment. Thank you for showing us the REAL facts once again.

24. Preston
    October 18th, 2011 @ 4:57 am

    Chum Lee,

    Regarding your comments by number:

    1. Any of the SCOTUS justices can distribute a case to the other justices for the conference. Several cases have been distributed.

    Four(4) justices must FORMALLY agree in the conference to grant cert.

    Every gesture, inflection, expression in Justice Scalia’s statement indicate that he deplored the fact that there were not 4 justices to take up this substantial and critical issue, with the terrible knowledge that the very existence of the republic of the U. S. is at stake.

    Justice Scalia was saying that he would take up the issue if he had authority, but you HAVE TO HAVE FOUR, and there are not four who are willing!

    The precise wording of the Constitution, the framers’ intent in their writings, and ALL precedent is clear on the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

    This requirement has been ignored, diluted, and defied. Several attempts have been made to eliminate the stringent requirement.

    The SCOTUS should rule on this issue. Can an anchor baby be POTUS? We currently have one in office. That assumes that Obama’s daddy was the British citizen Obama Sr. Jr. bears no resemblance to ANY of the Obama family that I have seen.

    2. Justice Thomas’ comments were completely and totally in context. You obfuscate.

    3. Justice Roberts had no requirement to look at Dr. Taitz’ information, nor could he take any SCOTUS action on it. It was not a formal filing certainly. He did say he would look at it. I do not believe Justice Roberts is a liar. You obviously do.

    4. NONE of the LOWER courts has ruled on the MERITS in any of the cases that were heard.

    The SCOTUS has refused to hear ANY cases.

    The SCOTUS rules on evidence presented in lower courts after arguments presented by counsel on constitutional validity of the lower court decision. Has not happened on this issue since the SCOTUS IS avoiding the issue.

    Federal judicial and legislative officials that have the requisite authority are refusing to deal with this issue.

    The establishment is protecting itself.

    The majority of the American people know this, and there will be consequences to these officials.

    No one is going to get away with anything.

    The truth will be known.

    Thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Baruch Ha Shem.

25. Chum Lee
    October 19th, 2011 @ 6:31 am

    Preston:

    1) All cases get distributed. The rule of 4 agreeing is formal in as much as it is long-standing tradition. I understand you think the Supreme’s SHOULD grant cert, but then again, so does every single other person to every file a cert petition.

    I won’t comment on Scalia’s vocal inflections and gestures. I have not seen the discussion, and either way, I do not possess psychic abilities to know what his thoughts are or were.

    I won’t comment on what the Constitution says or means. You will not agree with me anyways.

    2) Justice Thomas’ comments were in regards to a Puerto Rican running for President. How am I obfuscating?

    3) I do not know if Roberts is a liar. But I am concerned that he said he would not legislate from the Bench during his hearings, and on more than one occasion seemed to do just so. Citizens United is an example. Perhaps he did read what Orly provided him. I don’t know, I do know that I believe he was just wanting to quiet her down.

    4) Not true, but not sure why relevant. If a case is decided on jurisdictional grounds, it is decided. Both FOIA cases lost on summary judgment. Summary judgment, by definition, is a ruling on the merits.

    As for evidence and the Supremes. Except for cases that made it to a jury (very few) that are decided upon buy the Supremes, there is usually a motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss in the record. Facts, are therefore, viewed in favor of the one opposing the motion (caveat – facts must be admissible). The bulk of cases heard before the Supreme Court are not Constitutional questions, but instead, questions regarding federal statutes. Those need not have a constitutional component.

    I guess the SCOTUS avoids about 5000 issues a year since about that many petitions for cert are denied each year.

    Lastly, I agree that no one will get away with anything regarding the birther issues as there is nothing to get away with.

Leave a Reply