See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: What did president tell Supreme Court?
Source:
tinyurl
URL Source: http://tinyurl.com/6vr6gvc
Published: Jan 28, 2009
Author: dascallie
Post Date: 2012-07-07 19:31:53 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 200
Comments: 8
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL What did president tell Supreme Court? Lawyer in eligibility case seeks records of secret discussions Posted: January 27, 2009 9:47 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily A lawyer whose case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court says she will demand records of a meeting between the justices and the president. California lawyer Orly Taitz, who has several cases pending over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen, told WND she will take action soon. Her case was the most recent on which the Supreme Court held a "conference," an off-the-record discussion at which justices discuss whether to take a case. Taitz told WND the justices decided Jan. 23 to deny her case a hearing on its merits. The result was the same for previous cases brought by Philip Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, as well as Cort Wrotnowski. Like Berg's cases, Taitz said hers now reverts to the lower court, where it was pending when her emergency appeals were submitted to the Supreme Court. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Itistoolate (#0)
Orly Taitz clearly didn't get much of an education from her CloseCoverBeforeStriking school of law. The Presidents doesn't get to TELL the Supreme Court anything; Nixon should have proven than, the Citizens United decision should have proven that.
He must have told the old bastards and bastardettes that he had embarrassing pictures of them in compromising situations. And then they said, well, it appears to be a Mexican standoff. You have the pictures of us and we have proof you are not an American citizen so it's a wash and we won't hear anyone with proof about you if you don't publicize what you have on us.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." Mencken "..if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
All that one has to do is define the cancerous tumor running through all levels of government that is the CFR (council on foreign relations) and you will have your awakening. The number of cfr members on the supreme court will blow you away.
... If a man has nothing that he is willing to die for, then he has nothing worth living for....
I highly suspect what will happen is that the President's defense will be invoking some bullshit excuse called "executive privilege" to deny that lawyer lawful access to those records. The other way around that would be for the lawyer to get in contact with members of Congress and have the members of Congress do a FOIA requests, if possible and subpoena those justices (judges) themselves. A lawyer may not be able to serve upon that subpoena to those judges personally because for the lawyer to do so would be to attack one of its own because the lawyer is an officer of the court. It would have to take Congress to get involved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress Subpoenas Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas. As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[3] the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation. The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[4] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.
First, I doubt that there are or were any "records" of the conversations, although the fact that there is a photograph of the meeting suggests that there was an eyewitness who might be identified and questioned. Evidently this photographer has said nothing, so Taitz is just running on paranoia. Second, there is a serious Separation of Powers issue over whether Congress can quiz sitting Justices and Judges about the goings-on in their court. The only instances I know of were actual impeachments, which require specific accusations. Orly Taitz is already in trouble in various courts - there's a $20G fine imposed on her by one court (which she hasn't yet paid) and another court recommended her disbarment. She's got another birther trial coming up in Indiana on Oct 22nd, and it turns out that her purported witnesses - including Joe Arpaio - are refusing to come and testify (and be questioned under cross-examination).
That's not good when you have a hostile witness refusing to cooperate.
#2. To: Shoonra (#1)
#3. To: Shoonra (#1)
#4. To: Give Me Liberty (#3)
#5. To: Itistoolate (#0)
A lawyer whose case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court says she will demand records of a meeting between the justices and the president.
#6. To: Itistoolate (#0)
#7. To: purplerose (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: Shoonra (#7)
She's got another birther trial coming up in Indiana on Oct 22nd, and it turns out that her purported witnesses - including Joe Arpaio - are refusing to come and testify (and be questioned under cross-examination).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest