as I’ve been fighting and arguing with Obots, I was drafting this supplemental brief
Posted on | December 5, 2010 | 8 Comments
No.
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
CONNIE RHODES,
Captain, M.D., F.S.
Plaintiff,
DR. ORLY TAITZ,ESQ
Attorney for the Plaintiff, Interested Party- Appellant,
v.
THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
Garrison Commander, Fort Benning,
GEORGE STEUBER, Deputy,
Commander, Fort Benning,
ROBERT M. GATES,
Secretary of Defense,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendants,
Judge Clay D. Land
U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of GA, Author of Sua Sponte sanctions against the Plaintiff’s Counsel
Interested Party, Appellee
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeal of $20,000 sanctions assessed Sua Sponte by the District Court Judge Clay D. Land, citing legal action to ascertain validity of deployment orders due to lack of constitutional eligibility of President Obama to be a frivolous and sanctionable legal action
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Tel. 949-683-5411
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. In light of conflicting decisions of courts in CA and GA, what is the proper time to bring forward the Constitutional challenge to presidential eligibility: before or after the election and congressional confirmation?
2. If arguendo GA standard of eligibility verification is deemed to be a correct one, does adherence to CA standard represent a sanctionable offense by the counsel on the case?
ARGUMENT
After petition for writ of Certiorari was filed in the case at hand, a conflicting decision came from the Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of his long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA, Hon judge Alsup and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca honorable judges Scotland, Sims and Robie concurred that the proper time to challenge the eligibility of the President, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
“Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review–if any–should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
In the case of Rhodes v MaCDonald, which is the subject of the appeal, decision by Judge Clay D. Land, which was affirmed by the 11th Circuit court of Appeals, states that bringing eligibility case after the electoral and Congressional process have run their course is frivolous, as some 300 million dollars were already spent on the campaign and Judge Land has sanctioned attorney Orly Taitz $20,000 as he believed that challenging eligibility after the election and confirmation by Congress is frivolous. As such, there is a real controversy between different District Courts: District Court in the Middle District of Georgia and the District Court in the Northern District of California.
As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal, it seems to concur with the opinion of Land. On the other hand, as the District Court of Appeals in CA concurs with the decision of judge Alsup from the U.S. District Court, we have a controversy that involves four courts: two U.S. District Courts and two Courts of Appeals. In situation like that it is imperative for the Supreme Court of the United States to issue an opinion resolving this Constitutional conundrum.
It appears, that since there is such a difference of opinion, individual parties and attorneys are free to question eligibility at any time: before or after the election.
If arguendo Supreme Court of the United States decides that both Judge Alsup from the U.S. District court for the Northern District of CA and the CA court of Appeals is wrong and Judge Land is right and the proper timing for eligibility challenge is before the election, does it mean, that Judge Land and the 11th Circuit court were right in assessing sanctions against an attorney who brought the eligibility challenge after the election? As a different standard and opinion coming from the US. District Court in CA existed, Taitz was correct in bringing her legal action after the election, her actions were proper and timely and therefore not sanctionable.
CONCLUSION
Since there is a real controversy between different district courts and state courts, this issue needs to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even if the supreme Court finds that U.S. district Court for the Middle District of Georgia and Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals interpretation of the proper timing for eligibility challenge is correct and the interpretation by the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California and the California Court of Appeals is incorrect, due to existing controversy, it was reasonable for the Counsel to follow the CA interpretation and sanctions against the counsel were assessed in error and showed abuse of judicial discretion.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Tel. 949-683-5411
Comments
8 Responses to “as I’ve been fighting and arguing with Obots, I was drafting this supplemental brief”
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
December 5th, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
Dr. Orly. This is brilliant strategy. These corrupt courts have now put themselves in a position they can not escape. They are not near so clever as they think.
I remember reading from over a year ago that eventually the courts would be caught in a cross-triangulation of suits from which there would be nowhere to run and hide. You have finally accomplished that.
Congratulations!!! Let’s see how they dodge this one. They can’t!!!
I knew if anyone could do it, it would be you.
God Bless
December 5th, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Uh, Orly — SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction, on appellate jurisdiction, in your case. The ONLY issue before the SCOTUS is whether the Third Circuit erred in affirming the sanction that Judge Land imposed pursuant to Rule 11. No other issue will be entertained. I don’t see anything in this Supplemental Brief addressing Rule 11.
December 5th, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
GO ORLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 5th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Good! Now that you have completed this brief you can turn your attention to drafting a detailed explanation of how Leo Berman’s proposed legislation will operate. We are anxious to learn how Texas can outlaw the enforcement of the ACA and how it will have jurisdiction to arrest, try and confine federal employees and officers. I pointed you to the key provisions of the bill, so all you need to do is explain the logistics of how they will be carried out.
December 5th, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
where did you get the bill? it was not published. there was only an article on WND, that Leo Berman is drafting it
December 5th, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
he sanctioned me under rule 11, saying that it was frivolous to bring an action after the election. Other courts dismissed the cases, claiming that they were filed prematurely, before the legislative process could be inacted. It shows that the court erred and sanctions were not assessed peoperly
December 6th, 2010 @ 4:07 am
The bill is published online at the Texas Legislature’s website. Go to
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB297
and click on the tab at the top marked “Text.”
December 6th, 2010 @ 4:09 am
Sections 392.005 and 392.005 are the operative provisions.