I submitted under original jurisdiction last year, but the clerk in charge of original jurisdiction refused to file
Posted on | August 1, 2010 | 18 Comments
| bob |
Submitted on 2010/07/31 at 2:09pm
Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over Obama’s eligibility.The issue of standing should not be a problem. In any of these suits involving the states, why can’t Article 3, Sec. 2 (one of your favorites), U.S. Constitution, be used to justify seeking original jurisdiction from the Supreme Court directly instead of allowing BHO administration to have the cases heard by a U.S. Attorney’s office? GOOD QUESTION. I HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT QUESTION FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF NOW. You know the language well: It says, “….those in which a State shall be Party…” Answer from Orly |
Last year I submitted under the original jurisdiction, Easterling v Obama. This was an action on behalf of a 100 military officers. There was a clerk in the Supreme Court, in charge of original jurisdiction by name Cynthia Rapp. She refused to docket it. I spent thousands of dollars printing on a special heavy 6 lb paper, binding, FedExing 40 copies on special paper. It was a motion for leave of court to file under original Jurisdiction, she refused to docket it. She sent back the briefs. A Brigadier General called the chief clerk, William Sutter, inquiring why this clerk refuses to file.
According to FRAP Rule 25 a clerk is not allowed to refuse to file documents. I talked to this woman time and again, she was extremely rude and just refused to file. I don’t think people can even imagine, how much work I put into it, a lot of my own money, it is heartbreaking.
Comments
18 Responses to “I submitted under original jurisdiction last year, but the clerk in charge of original jurisdiction refused to file”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
August 1st, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
It appears as though the clerks are running the court instead of the justices. How do put a stop to this? How do we wake up the justices of the supreme court and get them to realize what is going on? They are clueless. Too bad we don’t have their e-mail addresses. Lots of questions and no answers.
August 1st, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Orly, you should consider going to the Supreme Court in person and have an appointment to see one of those justices or the chief clerk Mr. Sutton. This may be the only option after all attempts were made by you. I think it will be worth a try.
Blessings upon you and your family.
Anne
August 1st, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Supreme court Rules:
“Rule 1. Clerk
1. The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.”
Do you think that maybe the clerk thought your filing didn’t comply with the rules?
August 1st, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
KEEP SPENDIN’ THAT MONEY SENDING WORTHLESS DOSSIES TO THE COURTS BITCH. GET SOME FUCKIN’ 12 POUND PAPER NEXT TIME AND DROP IT ON YOUR HEAD, MAYBE IT’LL KNOCK SOME SENSE INTO YA.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 1:50 am
I know that the clerks were following my blogs, you might be one of them.
What was against the rules in my filing of the motion for the leave of court to file under the original jurisdiction? Can you answer that one? Can you ask your friends and fellow clerks?
August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:55 am
Perhaps we should explore that by the clerks refusing to file under the original jurisdiction correctly, they can also be charged with Treason at best as they are contributing to a usper staying in office.
Consider it and keep fighting.
God Bless
August 2nd, 2010 @ 5:45 am
Could it be that the clerk notices what Orly misses, eg that Obama is not just an official of the government like an ambassador or minister, but the POTUS himself, and that the Constitution says, that only Congress has jurisdiction over the POTUS ?
August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:52 am
that is an argument that you just made up. there are presidents of POTUS being tried in a court of law, Clinton v Jones is such an example
August 2nd, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
“that is an argument that you just made up. there are presidents of POTUS being tried in a court of law, Clinton v Jones is such an example”
Yes, but the Jones case was not filed in the US Supreme Court under original jurisdiction.
If your motion for leave did not contain a short and plain statement of the court’s jurisdiction, in the body of the motion for leave itself and not just in the “original action” you sought to file, then the clerk was authorized to reject it as not conforming to the rules of court.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
I believe your papers were rejected not for any single violation of the rules but for multiple violations. In addition, quo warranto is not a claim for which original jurisdiction is available, and no ambassadors, foreign states, or U.S. States suing each other were involved, so there was no right to original jurisdiction at all.
Finally, the petition for leave to file an original jurisdiction case must be made first. You made it well after you sought to file other papers.
While your claim was rejected solely for multiple rules violations, on the merits it would never have been considered either.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Then shouldn’t Dr. Taitz have been given,in writting reason for the denial of her motion for the refusal to file?? Or did I miss something here??
August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Dr. Taitz
Has any other Attorney’s filings been rejected?
August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Trying to get Leo Haffney to address this issue of original jurisdiction at SCOTUS, this really needs to be cleaned up. The law clearly says they have original jurisdiction.
If someone filed a law suit, to get SCOTUS to listen to your case under original jurisdiction, only SCOTUS could hear it. They are “it”.
If the clerks at SCOTUS are sabotaging this legal effort to identify the usurper in the white house this needs to be exposed. This is treason.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Can it be re-filed?
August 2nd, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
Plus it did not try to remove him from office and declare him ineligible to hold the office, as only Congress can do.
The filings all violate the rules as far as number of pages, correct?
August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
it can, but what is the point, if the clerks are runing the show and the Justices decide nothing
Please check for any appearances of justices of the Supreme Court and for appearances of the judges of the supreme courts of other states, so we can ak them straight questions on camera
August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
there were 2 applications for stay, that were rejected. Nobody else filed Quo Warranto, nobody else filed under original jurisdiction
August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
of course