Birther Orly Taitz Petitions Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

WingnutsJuly 2010 • Views: 3,990

The head wacko of the delusional right wing Birther movement is raging over a $20,000 sanction she was ordered to pay for filing one frivolous lawsuit after another; now she’s petitioning Clarence Thomas to block the sanction, with a rambling, paranoid 300-page brief she published on her website: Obama birth lawyer goes to the Supreme Court.

Orly Taitz, the Laguna Niguel attorney famous for attempts to prove that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, has asked Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas to block a $20,000 sanction placed on her by U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land, according to Taitz website.

“Allowing sanctions by Judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United States of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation,” she writes in the lengthy brief posted on her website.

“If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?”

Here’s the brief at Taitz’s site, followed by dozens of completely insane comments from the Birther Brigade.

Jump to bottom

70 comments

efuseakay Tue, Jul 13, 2010 8:57:10am

LOL How soon she forgets:

[Link: www.wnd.com...]

Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't know what's funnier... the fact that WND still has that article posted, or that Taitz thinks anyone (sane) takes her seriously.

goddamnedfrank Tue, Jul 13, 2010 8:58:03am

Weapons grade crazy.

jamesfirecat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 8:58:38am

So taking actions to cut back on frivolous lawsuits is the first step towards turning out nation into a dictatorship?

Image: OrlyTaitzOwl.jpg

SpaceJesus Tue, Jul 13, 2010 8:58:44am

I'm pretty certain that's approximately 10 times longer than the allowed page length

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Jul 13, 2010 8:58:49am

Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression. Tyranny and oppression.

Killgore Trout Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:03:12am

Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG?

LOL

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:03:27am

ROFL a 300-page brief?

I would be amazed if it didn't get tossed without ever being read. I also wouldn't be surprised if Taitz knows that this will happen, and is counting on it to happen, so she can get more contributions from her fan club.

SCOTUS rules, including limits on submitted brief size.

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:07:55am

re: #2 goddamnedfrank

Weapons grade ~~crazy~~ stupid.

FTFY

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:09:16am

re: #7 Fozzie Bear

ROFL a 300-page brief?

I would be amazed if it didn't get tossed without ever being read. I also wouldn't be surprised if Taitz knows that this will happen, and is counting on it to happen, so she can get more contributions from her fan club.

SCOTUS rules, including limits on submitted brief size.

This whole thing is turning into a Twoofer-like scam. The Twoofers haven't had a new argument in years and have never had an argument of substance, yet they continue to bleat about every "new" development in their never-ending saga in the hope of getting more people to buy into their product line.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:09:33am

re: #7 Fozzie Bear

If we start lmiting the size of legal briefs, what will that lead to? Public burning of legal briefs on the Supreme Couthouse Steps? Reeducation camps like under Pol Pot?

If Orly has time to write an Ayn Rand-sized novel, it is the legal duty of any judge she burdens with it to duly read and respond to it!

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:09:40am

Count on this happening:

- She submits brief.
- SCOTUS Refuses to hear brief due to lack of brevity (irony)
- Taitz screams "I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and accuses the court of being in on some kind of conspiracy to hide Obama's "true" past.

lawhawk Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:10:55am

And when Justice Thomas smacks her down with a denial of her request for relief, what then? Is he too a member of the conspiracy?

Nope - she's just barking mad and keeps filling up the docket with frivolous suits. While I don't think Thomas can impose sanctions himself on her latest nonsense, he could probably remand with a recommendation to impose even more (and I'd probably push for at least a doubling of them - and then some).

She's wasting the time of the courts all over the place with her nonsense - and they don't even have a shred of proof to support their wacky theories (not that you ever needed 'em for a conspiracy to take root).

Decatur Deb Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:11:28am

A lot of people would like to see lawyer Taitz silenced. None of them are Progressive Totalitarian Transnational Democrats.

theheat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:12:05am

I can't dedicate another second of my life to 300 pages of crazy. I've lost about 20 minutes to listening to Mel Gibson this week, already. My tiny violin strings are worn out.

thatthatisis Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:12:07am

I guess in her mind it's a natural step from a Bush-appointed judge fining her, to Obama detaining opponents in FEMA camps and political assassinations.

Given everything that the tea partiers are saying about Obama enslaving Americans, using a tax on tanning beds as revenge against whitey, and death panels, it does seem weirdly consistent.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:13:39am

re: #15 thatthatisis

I guess in her mind it's a natural step from a Bush-appointed judge fining her, to Obama detaining opponents in FEMA camps and political assassinations.

Given everything that the tea partiers are saying about Obama enslaving Americans, using a tax on tanning beds as revenge against whitey, and death panels, it does seem weirdly consistent.

You mean black people get use tanning beds without paying the tax?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:14:55am

re: #15 thatthatisis

I guess in her mind it's a natural step from a Bush-appointed judge fining her, to Obama detaining opponents in FEMA camps and political assassinations.

Given everything that the tea partiers are saying about Obama enslaving Americans, using a tax on tanning beds as revenge against whitey, and death panels, it does seem weirdly consistent.

Well, the tanning bed tax is clearly a ploy to make whitey even whiter.

Radicchio ad Absurdum Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:15:13am

re: #12 lawhawk

And when Justice Thomas smacks her down with a denial of her request for relief, what then? Is he too a member of the conspiracy?

Nope - she's just barking mad and keeps filling up the docket with frivolous suits. While I don't think Thomas can impose sanctions himself on her latest nonsense, he could probably remand with a recommendation to impose even more (and I'd probably push for at least a doubling of them - and then some).

She's wasting the time of the courts all over the place with her nonsense - and they don't even have a shred of proof to support their wacky theories (not that you ever needed 'em for a conspiracy to take root).

I wonder if they can't sanction her. What of the inherent power of the Court to police the cases before it? I wonder if there is precedent for sanctions from SCOTUS. I know they once held a criminal trial.

lawhawk Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:15:30am

re: #7 Fozzie Bear

Oh, I'm sure it will get read - and promptly dismissed without comment (or if comment is provided - it will be of a nature of a legal smackdown). Rule 22 governs the procedure for applications to specific justices.

I can only hope for the legal equivalent of taking Taitz behind the woodshed for a smackdown for running with this crap.

theheat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:16:26am

re: #16 ralphieboy

No, the dark ones trap the white ones with the clamshell action of the bed, then send the victim off to the FEMA camps. Imagine a UV version of the Venus flytrap.

Very clever.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:17:26am

re: #19 lawhawk

Well, my point is the SCOTUS has grounds to dismiss it without ever reading it, due to the ridiculous length of her "brief". It's almost like she wants it to be dismissed summarily.

Decatur Deb Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:17:45am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

Well, the tanning bed tax is clearly a ploy to make whitey even whiter.

/

Nipsey Russel had a great line in the days of the tanning cream "Man Tan".
To meet us half way, he planned to market a skin bleach to be called "Yellow Fellow".

lawhawk Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:19:58am

re: #21 Fozzie Bear

That's a good point- they could do so because of the gross violation of the rules for submitting briefs to the court (showing an absolute disregard for court procedure). However, I think that to quash any further attempts, they might read the brief, and cite her insanity and other claims in giving her the smackdown. I'd have to look and see whether the S.Ct. can impose sanctions or not.

Spare O'Lake Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:20:24am

re: #19 lawhawk

Oh, I'm sure it will get read - and promptly dismissed without comment (or if comment is provided - it will be of a nature of a legal smackdown). Rule 22 governs the procedure for applications to specific justices.

I can only hope for the legal equivalent of taking Taitz behind the woodshed for a smackdown for running with this crap.

She deserves to have her ticket pulled for this.

McSpiff Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:21:50am

Can't wait till these briefs turn into threats to the justices. Then she'll be locked away for a good long time.

lawhawk Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:22:14am

re: #24 Spare O'Lake

Well, California is investigating her, but no decision has been rendered by the State Bar.

Feline Fearless Leader Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:22:47am

re: #21 Fozzie Bear

Well, my point is the SCOTUS has grounds to dismiss it without ever reading it, due to the ridiculous length of her "brief". It's almost like she wants it to be dismissed summarily.

Would "Scoop of chocolate, scoop of vanilla. Don't waste my time." from Thomas be the record for the shortest Supreme Court rebuttal on record?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:23:14am

Notice also that she is directly petitioning the one black member of SCOTUS, rather than the court as a whole. She is attempting to create cover for the racist overtones of this whole endeavor by trying to force Thomas (a black guy) to reject her brief.

re: #24 Spare O'Lake

She deserves to have her ticket pulled for this.

She should have been disbarred awhile ago.

Dancing along the light of day Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:24:49am

She is the crazy, that just keeps on giving!

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:25:11am

I don't believe for a second that she wants or even expects her case to be heard. This is Kabuki for her fan club, plain and simple.

lawhawk Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:25:11am

re: #28 Fozzie Bear

There's that - but it's also because he may be perceived as the most sympathetic justice on the court (most conservative). And don't think that the Court doesn't know what she's trying to do either - and may take her and her cohorts to task for this nonsense.

blueraven Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:25:19am

Orly Taitz' 300 page brief = oxymoron by a moron

Kragar Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:27:08am

Everytime I try to reason out Orly, this happens:

Image: deadpool-brain.jpg

Big Steve Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:29:48am

If I were Clarence Thomas......thinking back how Obama used him as a prop during the campaign (commenting that Thomas would be the one Supreme Court member that he would not have nominated), I would take my good old time reviewing this request just for the fun of it.

Big Steve Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:30:56am

re: #24 Spare O'Lake

She deserves to have her ticket pulled for this.

what does this mean?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:31:23am

re: #34 Big Steve

If I were Clarence Thomas...thinking back how Obama used him as a prop during the campaign (commenting that Thomas would be the one Supreme Court member that he would not have nominated), I would take my good old time reviewing this request just for the fun of it.

Whose fun?

I guarantee that Obama is not at all concerned about this. Not even a little.

McSpiff Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:31:55am

re: #34 Big Steve

If I were Clarence Thomas...thinking back how Obama used him as a prop during the campaign (commenting that Thomas would be the one Supreme Court member that he would not have nominated), I would take my good old time reviewing this request just for the fun of it.

I have faith that a justice of the SCOTUS would place a higher value on the integrity of the court rather than using it to score cheap political points, but to each his own I suppose.

blueraven Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:31:56am

re: #34 Big Steve

If I were Clarence Thomas...thinking back how Obama used him as a prop during the campaign (commenting that Thomas would be the one Supreme Court member that he would not have nominated), I would take my good old time reviewing this request just for the fun of it.

He was asked a question...he answered.
How is that using Thomas as a prop?

The Curmudgeon Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:32:00am

Does anyone know if Orly Taitz is also a creationist? Learning that she is would really make my day.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:32:19am

re: #36 Fozzie Bear

Whose fun?

I guarantee that Obama is not at all concerned about this. Not even a little.

No, he is too busy designing the ovens for the FEMAGULAG camps...

jamesfirecat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:32:26am

re: #34 Big Steve

If I were Clarence Thomas...thinking back how Obama used him as a prop during the campaign (commenting that Thomas would be the one Supreme Court member that he would not have nominated), I would take my good old time reviewing this request just for the fun of it.

That's not using someone as a prop, that's using someone as an example.....

To use someone as a prop you have to make use of their physical without having them say anything, just by having them stand around. You know like an actual prop in a movie, something lifeless that you use without expecting or giving it a chance to say anything of its own.

I could give you some modern examples, but here is the least partisan one that comes to mind.

Image: 180122.jpg

THAT is using someone as a prop.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:33:43am

re: #41 jamesfirecat

ROFL the guy in that picture looks so annoyed and crestfallen.

Colbert is awesome.

Walter L. Newton Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:35:55am

I'm not clear on this? Is she bringing this to the whole Supreme Court, or just Thomas?

Summer Seale Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:36:03am

The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as [the...because the bitch can't speak properly either when she rants or writes, apparently - Summer] regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or [the...again - Summer] regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?”

I guess she writes just the way she speaks. She should probably go back to school and learn English before trying to present any more cases to any court at all.

Then again, maybe not. It's kind of funnier and more tragic this way.

Ericus58 Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:36:20am

re: #37 McSpiff

I have faith that a justice of the SCOTUS would place a higher value on the integrity of the court rather than using it to score cheap political points, but to each his own I suppose.

I have no doubt that Thomas will act in a manner that will reflect his position on the SCOTUS. His Integrity will reamin intact.

The scoring of cheap political points will be left for State of the Union addresses.

blueraven Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:36:49am

re: #35 Big Steve

what does this mean?

Disbarred maybe for costing the tax payers big bucks for her many frivolous law suits?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:36:56am

re: #43 Walter L. Newton

I'm not clear on this? Is she bringing this to the whole Supreme Court, or just Thomas?

Well, both, sort of.

She's petitioning Thomas to bring it before the court as a whole.

Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:37:16am

re: #43 Walter L. Newton

I'm not clear on this? Is she bringing this to the whole Supreme Court, or just Thomas?

It is addressed to just Thomas. I think, reading the rules Lawhawk linked, that he may at his discretion bring it before the Court. Or, he could just reject her out of hand with a stinging rebuke and possibly remand to the lower court with instructions to increase the sanctions.

jamesfirecat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:37:39am

re: #42 Fozzie Bear

ROFL the guy in that picture looks so annoyed and crestfallen.

Colbert is awesome.

You know what's amazing, at the time they came up with that gag, the Colbert Report staff didn't actually have any black people on it. So they actually had to hire a black guy to come in and pose as Colbert's Black Friend which adds an entirely new level of meta to the joke....

Walter L. Newton Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:38:40am

re: #47 Fozzie Bear

Well, both, sort of.

She's petitioning Thomas to bring it before the court as a whole.

OK... I don't really know much about how that works. So, you can petition one justice in an attempt/hopes that he/she finds the case possibly valid and then that justice will bring his/her argument for it to the whole court?

blueraven Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:38:55am

re: #45 Ericus58

I have no doubt that Thomas will act in a manner that will reflect his position on the SCOTUS. His Integrity will reamin intact.

The scoring of cheap political points will be left for State of the Union addresses.

Or maybe pointing out activism from the bench.

Max Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:38:56am

I think Johnathan Lee Riches just got dethroned as the King of Frivolous Lawsuits.

Walter L. Newton Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:39:49am

re: #48 thedopefishlives

It is addressed to just Thomas. I think, reading the rules Lawhawk linked, that he may at his discretion bring it before the Court. Or, he could just reject her out of hand with a stinging rebuke and possibly remand to the lower court with instructions to increase the sanctions.

I just jumped in here, didn't see anything up thread... I get it now. I really don't know a lot about the Supreme Court.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:40:08am

re: #50 Walter L. Newton

OK... I don't really know much about how that works. So, you can petition one justice in an attempt/hopes that he/she finds the case possibly valid and then that justice will bring his/her argument for it to the whole court?

Yep, that's pretty much it.

Walter L. Newton Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:40:20am

re: #54 Fozzie Bear

Yep, that's pretty much it.

Thanks.

Big Steve Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:42:12am

To those that responded to the "prop" comment. First, it is standard use of the word prop to use it to define a person who is being used as an example, who due to their position, is not expected to answer. So when the boss is speaking in a meeting and uses someone in the room as an example, without there being any understanding that the person can respond, well that is using them as a prop. Second, when Obama was asked this question and do not be a perfect innocent here.....he could have adeptly not answered if he wanted to. But he chose to mention Thomas. So why would he not say Scalia who is more conservative than Thomas? If you don't think Obama was considering race when he answered this, well I think you have blinders on.

Jeff In Ohio Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:42:12am

The comments are astounding. A good percentage of them must be sarcastic concern trolls. LOL Funny.

wrenchwench Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:44:32am

re: #52 Max D. Reinhardt

I think Johnathan Lee Riches just got dethroned as the King of Frivolous Lawsuits.

Welcome, hatchling. I've seen you on the Twitter at #LGF.

zora Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:44:40am

re: #56 Big Steve

To those that responded to the "prop" comment. First, it is standard use of the word prop to use it to define a person who is being used as an example, who due to their position, is not expected to answer. So when the boss is speaking in a meeting and uses someone in the room as an example, without there being any understanding that the person can respond, well that is using them as a prop. Second, when Obama was asked this question and do not be a perfect innocent here...he could have adeptly not answered if he wanted to. But he chose to mention Thomas. So why would he not say Scalia who is more conservative than Thomas? If you don't think Obama was considering race when he answered this, well I think you have blinders on.

obama doesn't care about black peolple. couldn't resist.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:45:58am

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

Thanks.

SCOTUS is a fascinating institution. Each justice has their own personal clerks, and they rarely communicate with each other directly in person. It's all written down. It's a very literary "men of letters" kind of tradition.

jamesfirecat Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:50:20am

re: #56 Big Steve

To those that responded to the "prop" comment. First, it is standard use of the word prop to use it to define a person who is being used as an example, who due to their position, is not expected to answer. So when the boss is speaking in a meeting and uses someone in the room as an example, without there being any understanding that the person can respond, well that is using them as a prop. Second, when Obama was asked this question and do not be a perfect innocent here...he could have adeptly not answered if he wanted to. But he chose to mention Thomas. So why would he not say Scalia who is more conservative than Thomas? If you don't think Obama was considering race when he answered this, well I think you have blinders on.

May Obama said Thomas rather than Scalia because he feels that while Scalia is more conservative he also is a more intelligent man who puts more thought into his issues.

Or maybe there are a million other different reasons he chose to mention Thomas, but heaven forbid our President ever state his opinion if he has one!

wrenchwench Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:52:43am

re: #58 wrenchwench

Welcome, hatchling. I've seen you on the Twitter at #LGF.

...or someone using that name....

/big assumption mode off

garhighway Tue, Jul 13, 2010 9:59:33am

I have said it before and I will say it again: Orly Taitz is the most accomplished lawyer/dentist/realtor I have ever heard of.

Of course, she's the only lawyer/dentist/realtor I have ever heard of, but still...

Lidane Tue, Jul 13, 2010 10:29:16am

Apparently, David Vitter has become a birther now too:

VITTER: I know all the information I’ve been able to get my hands on through the media. But obviously with the mainstream media as a filter, that’s not a whole lot. I personally don’t have standing to bring litigation in court. But I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court. I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it. I think quite frankly, and I’ll be blunt, I think if we focus on that issue and let our eye off the ball in terms of this fall’s election, in terms of ongoing policy votes, week in, week out in the Congress, I think that’s a big mistake.

Youtube Video

Steevlak Tue, Jul 13, 2010 12:02:55pm

I love this stuff, and I could read this type of craziness all day. It's almost as much fun as cryptozoology or Andrew W.K.-is-really-an-actor websites.

Hawaii69 Tue, Jul 13, 2010 12:41:08pm

I don't know how Taitz can take anything up with the Supreme Court. Her correspondence school law degree isn't valid outside of California.

On the other hand, she is probably well qualified to take care of their teeth.

bratwurst Tue, Jul 13, 2010 1:26:29pm

Coming soon to this thread (probably overnight): one or more people with few or no posts "asking questions". Watch this space!

Cato the Elder Tue, Jul 13, 2010 7:00:32pm

Three hundred pages?

LOL. I don't think Justice Thomas has read that much at one sitting since law school.

Fortitudine Tue, Jul 13, 2010 7:57:37pm

Orly Taitz; the gift that keeps on giving.

CDRealist Wed, Jul 14, 2010 5:21:48am

My favorite comment is her plant, to sell books.

Old Man July 8th, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Lady Liberty, I want to buy ten copies for the Republican club at my retirement community. I read your blog posts to them every week and they love you. Can you give me a bulk discount?

dr_taitz@yahoo.com July 8th, 2010 @ 10:51 am
yes, 10% discount for 10 books

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Birther Orly Taitz Petitions Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud