OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

From reader Carol

Posted on | July 4, 2009 | Comments Off on From reader Carol

https://www.slate.com/id/2143628/
 
Dear Dr Orly:
 
This is an interesting discussion of what the clerks do at the supreme court. It also refers to several books about their roles and most interesting to me, it said in the 1970s, there was one clerk per justice and that was increased to 4 clerks per justice.
 
Wonder who was behind that scheme? I also wonder who exactly are the clerks for each justice, who hires them, who fires them, who trains them, who reviews them, who is responsible for what they do.
 
Usually any bureaucratic job has a performance review process, a supervisor, and a complaint process. You are interacting with clerks out of context, not knowing who regulates their actions, and you need to know who their superior is and how to address a complaint. People often act different when supervisors are involved.
 
This is an abomination, to think that young inexperienced graduates in their 20s are reviewing incoming cases at the highest court, and writing opinion drafts for Justices who are chosen after much experience and much debate for their positions.
 
There are inexperienced gatekeepers, with immature opinions, in positions of great power. They should have 10-15 years experience as lawyers before given so much power, or else  their roles should be dramatically reduced.
 
This type of thing should be thrown off the track and justices should be required to review all incoming cases. The justices alone should decide which cases to focus on, and then use clerks only for delegated research about that case, not major decision making such as proper jurisdiction, etc.
 
I think it is the reverse now, where clerks review what is arriving and filter it through to justices.
 
It is truly Through the Looking Glass in DC.
 
Personally, I hope that a small political party, like American Independent Party or The Green Party brings a lawsuit against DNC and/or RNC, challenging their choice of candidate, signing paperwork in every state, yet failing to provide any proof of qualification for their candidate when questioned by citizens.
 
The major parties were trusted by the states to follow the party by-laws to select a “candidate qualified according to the constitution.” This allowed them the freedom to sign documents in each state rather than provide backup paperwork documentation. They violated this trust, Obama has no papers, the DNC has no papers, and it puts at risk the smaller parties as they comply with constitutional laws and have to campaign against parties who are lying about their candidates.
 
The major parties corrupted the ballot and created national voter fraud, and to this day have failed to provide any proof to those who have written the party for proof that their candidate is qualified. I wrote DNC and they never responded with any proof.
 
The smaller party would have standing against a larger party, I would think, as they are supposed to abide by the same candidate rules. Also it is not a “moot issue” because voting happens every 2-4 years.
 
This would force the case into court and force a definition of natural born citizen, to lay common groundwork for all parties, and it would contest the current party candidates, and their fraudulent signing in every state that their candidate was qualified.
 
Instead of people against organizations, make it organizations against similar organizations. Perhaps a coalition of smaller parties could combat the monster DNC.
 
Thanks for what you are doing to spread the message.
 
I called the office where the criminal complaint by Fitzpatrick was filed, and they said it was “only a complaint and not all complaints are followed up. It was not a criminal charge.”
 
Fitzpatrick may need a lawyer to force his criminal complaint to be recognized. He may even have a military lawyer step in to speak for him.
 
I think the Secret Service was sent to see if he was a volatile nutcase, and decided he was not dangerous. But since his complaint is being ignored, it would seem that a lawyer could challenge the US attorney in his area for failure to handle a complaint according to the laws of their office.
 
Holder probably sent word down the chain to ignore it or get fired. So maybe a laywer for Fitzpatrick could help it not be ignored. Retired lawyers like Hemenway may be happy to jump into the fray, if their careers are no longer at risk for tackling touchy subjects.
 
Studying the judicial system, there are “tax courts” and other specific courts, and it looks to me like there needs to be a specific “election court” that handles voter and candidacy issues for county, states and the nation, that would provide standing to any election-related issue.
 
It seems like courts are comparing apples and oranges and do not have any protocol or precedent for complicated election issues, except to dismiss them, because they lack common sense, cannot think outside the box, and do not seem to realize that a sentence “the candidate must be eligible” automatically means his paperwork can be requested.
 
They seem to need a typed sentence, “…and the paperwork and documentation can be requested if eligibility is in question.” Small minds think in small circles and seem to lack simple logic or deliberately confuse the obvious.
 
God bless,
Carol

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

Comments are closed.