The Supreme Court has declined to stay the $20,000 fine levied by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land against California attorney Orly Taitz.

Ms. Taitz, who represented Army CPT Connie Rhodes in her challenge to the President’s eligibility (and who may have exceeded her client’s direction in doing so, according to this letter from CPT Rhodes), was cited last year by Judge Land for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.  In a foreshadowing of United States v. Lakin, Judge Land noted that Ms. Taitz “provided no legal authority to support the proposition that even if the President were found not to be eligible for the office, that this would mean all soldiers in the military would be authorized to disregard their duty as American soldiers and disobey orders from their chain of command.”  Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1376-77 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff’d, No. 09-15418 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2010).  The judge concluded that the action brought and maintained by Ms. Taitz was an attempt “to use the legal process for an improper purpose” — i.e., the political goal of removing the President. Id., 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1379.

After losing her bid to have the sanctions overturned by the Eleventh Circuit, Ms. Taitz sought a stay from Justice Thomas, who turned her down.  She was undeterred: “It was never seen by Justice Thomas, there’s not evidence it was seen by Justice Thomas.”  With her request now rejected by the full Court, she reportedly questions whether the justices actually decided her request:

Taitz told TPMMuckraker she is convinced that none of the members of the court read her request, and that clerks made the decision for the justices.

Ms. Taitz claims she is in no danger of failing to pay her fine, when and if she accepts its legitimacy: “I have means to pay, the public is collecting funds … Within a month, I will have the $20,000.”

32 Responses to “SCOTUS rejects request for stay in Rhodes v. MacDonald

  1. Anonymous says:

    The Justices delegated this incredibly important, end-of-the-world, history-making matter to their clerks? Amazing. Stay tuned as Orly reveals that members of Congress have their staff draft legislation.

  2. Birth, Wind, and Fire says:

    All these judges are going to look quite silly when the truth is revealed!

  3. any mouse says:

    Are two of the Justices even Justices? dun dun dun

  4. soonergrunt says:

    You just know she’s going to go there.

  5. Bovril says:

    So Birfer, Flatulence and Hemorrhoids, do tell, what truth would that be…?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Breaking news, Justice Thomas personally flies to meet with Mrs. Taitz to tell her he did read her brief. Mrs. Taitz replies, how do I know that wasn’t a Justice Thomas-impersonator/Lizard Person?

  7. jamese777 says:

    What “truth” is that? And how is it going to be “revealed” if not in a court of law? The legal scorecard thus far is Obama: 72/Birthers: 0

  8. Birth, Wind, and Fire says:

    The level of incompetence shown on this thread simply amazes me…you guys are in for a big surprise!

  9. Norbrook says:

    Is it bigger than a breadbox?

  10. BigGuy says:

    Be sure to point it out to us when it happens.

  11. soonergrunt says:

    {looks around for Col Sullivan}
    And yet again, I have this image of a Bond Villain in a cave surrounded by old computers rubbing his hands together.
    Pssst, hey buddy! I’ve seen this one. Bond is going to escape by cutting his handcuffs with the laser in his wristwatch and using his belt to zip-line down from the chandelier you’ve hung him from, commandeer a motor cycle from one of your mooks, race through the jungle to the launch site, and stop your evil missile loaded with faked copies of the Constitution without the 13th through 17th amendments, millions of copies of which will be spread by an air-burst high over Kansas which would have fluttered down all over the country sowing confusion and doubt and causing the 82nd Airborne Division to march on the White House to remove the Usurper. He’ll stop the missile 007 seconds before launch. get it? 007 seconds! All because you evil genius types never search Bond like a common jailer would. Sheesh, what IS it with you guys?!

  12. JWS says:

    OK, here’s the question again: Assuming, arguendo, the Prez was in fact born in Kenya, how does that change things? The Prez would still be the child of an American citizen (his Mom) and thus “natural born.” Looks to me like a distinction without a difference.

    Just askin’.

  13. Trevor says:

    The level of incompetence shown on this thread simply amazes me…you guys are in for a big surprise!

    Still waiting…..what is the amazing, fabulous, astonishing, astounding, ground breaking, wonderous, tremendous, life shattering suprise?

    Is it a pony?

  14. Anonymous says:

    I think that would be in a grey area. Under the statute in place at the time, he would not have been automatically granted citizenship due to his mother’s age and time spent in the US. However, under today’s statute, he would. So which would a court apply? Your guess is as good as mine. There is also the issue of whether her marriage to Obama Sr was valid since he already had an informal wife in Kenya. In the case of an unwed mother, then the child would be a citizen.

    In your fictional scenario, no one can be certain how a court would decide. My opinion is that courts would (correctly) tread very cautiously in overturning an election. I think if it was at all a close call, they would let the voters’ verdict stand. I’m not even convinced they would overturn the election of a clear non-natural born, like Schwarzenegger. Such a candidate could be denied a place on the ballot, but if he got on the ballot and won and Congress certified it, I suspect the courts would stay out of it.

    A final word on natural born citizen. If you read the history of the time and the little that was written on the subject by the framers of the Constitution, the concern was that the young Republic was alone in a world of monarchies and the people were used to living under a King. They were afraid a junior child of a European royal family would come here and get elected President and rule as a King. They were not concerned about an infant born to a US citizen abroad and brought here at 1 week old. By the way, the vast majority of countries open up their highest office to all citizens, natural born or naturalized, and don’t seem to run into problems with that.

    None of this matters to the Lakin case, though. All of this is well above his pay grade.

  15. Dave says:

    For two years I’ve been hearing that something big is going to happen very soon, and it never gets old. I also really like the part about how terrified all liberals are of the scary birthers. Could you tell us that story too?

    Wait, I do know something surprising that will likely happen soon: Taitz will figure out she filed her cert petition late. Of course, that’ll be the clerks’ fault too.

  16. Norbrook says:

    In terms of citizenship, it’s a gray area from a legal standpoint, as Anon 0714 pointed out. In terms of “how does that change things,” it doesn’t.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that tomorrow morning someone appears with irrefutable proof that President Obama was born in Kenya. What can the courts do about it? They might keep him off the ballot in 2012, but they can do nothing to him as the President. That capability is strictly limited to Congress. There would be no “new election” (which some of them believe) or the elevation of “President McCain.” Under the de facto officer doctrine, everything President Obama did while serving as President would still be valid.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if the Supreme Court is going to levy its own fine against her? A lawyer publicly accusing the Supreme Court of passing its job off to clerks seems tantamount to libel or slander. Or report her to her bar for unethical conduct?

  18. BigGuy says:

    Taitz has been involved in several activities that might be of interest to the California Bar, including her engagement one Charles E. Lincoln III, a disbarred lawyer, to act as her “clerk” without giving proper notification of that fact.

    While it is rumored that several Bar complaints have been filed against her, at least one anonymous complaint has been made public (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15546236/Taitz-State-Bar-Complaint) and one member of the California Bar, Subodh Chandra, has filed a signed one (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/09/complaint-to-california-bar-re-orly-taitz-91709.php).

    In addition, Connie Rhodes, the plaintiff in the case for which Taitz was sanctioned, addressed a letter to Judge Land stating, “It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.”

    There are several problems plaguing the California Bar at the moment, including the state’s budgetary crisis and the proliferation of mortgage fraud cases. Still, one has to wonder why no action on these complaints has yet been taken.

  19. Norbrook says:

    I know that Judge Land directed that a copy of his sanctions order be directed to the California Bar. Reading through the filings, you can see that Judge Land was incredibly patient with her, even, at one point, walking her through “burden of proof.” I think a lot of us thought she got off lightly with the 20K.

  20. Norbrook says:

    If anyone would like to read the original sanctions order, it can be found here. It’s definitely clear from it that Ms. Taitz irked Judge Land. That’s an understatement, by the way.

  21. soonergrunt says:

    I’m beginning to wonder if “Birth, Wind, and Fire” isn’t a parody, and we’re all dealing with Poe’s law:

    Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism (or any crackpot theory) that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.

  22. Anonymous says:

    “Regarding the obsurd notion that the Framers would consider someone born outside this country as a “citizen” as long as their parents were citizens”

    Obsurd? Is that like refudiate? I suppose you are unfamiliar with the Naturalization Act of 1790, voted on by the Framers. It said the following: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

    Oh, and Georgia (the country) was annexed by Russia early in the 19th Century. So Stalin who spoke perfect Russian was born a Russian citizen in the region of Georgia.

    As for your mention of the Nazis, Godwin’s Law.

    I could go on and demolish the rest of what you said, but it would be like taking candy from a baby.

  23. Anonymous says:

    “BTW, I like riddles can you guess my name?”

    obsurd
    assimulate
    basic tenants

    Sounds like Sarah Palin to me

  24. soonergrunt says:

    Give me a few minutes and I’ll suss out the farce behind your claimed username.

  25. soonergrunt says:

    Give me a few minutes and I’ll suss out the farce behind your claimed username.

    Got it! There’s no actual ‘reason’ in what you’ve posted.

  26. Trevor says:

    Dear Burp of Ignorance

    I am most impressed by your diatribe and how you have managed to hit so many Birfers points in one babble and manage to conflate the current, legally elected POTUS and NBC with….

    Communism
    Socialism
    Nazi’ism
    Liberal (although I’m sure your preferred spelling is Lieberal)
    Illegal immigrant
    3 world (we understand your preoccupation with ooooh…Kenya?)
    Wicked Ebil NWO

    All you need is to throw in a few asinine Sovereign Citizen comments and you win the prize as “Muppet For A Day”

  27. Anonymous says:

    First of all, why have you stolen soonergrunt’s name? You don’t sound at all like the soonergrunt I’ve read here many times before.

    Anyway, yes the US at the time of the framers was rascist. The Constitution accepted slavery, so it was itself racist. Yet you, in your post before you assumed soonergrunt’s identity lauded the Tea Party for wanting to go back to the ways of the Framers. I let the reader draw their own conclusion.

    The point remains that you claimed “the obsurd notion that the Framers would consider someone born outside this country as a “citizen” as long as their parents were citizens”. You don’t know history. I have shown you that the absolutely did (at least for white citizens). Actually, to be quite fair, free blacks (as opposed to slaves) born in the US were citizens and the act could be interpreted that their children born overseas would be citizens as well. I don’t know of any case law either way, but that appears to be what the act says.

    As for Stalin, he learned Russian in school and spoke it perfectly well, though with a Georgian accent. Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brezinski, among many others speak perfect English with an accent.

    Now would the real soonergrunt please come back.

  28. Christopher Mathews says:

    Anon 1851, thanks for pointing out that the Commenter Currently Known As Anon 1811 “borrowed” someone else’s name.

  29. soonergrunt says:

    Anon 1851, and Judge Matthews,
    Thanks. I saw the email digest with a post under my user handle and was like “WTF, over?!”
    I would like to think that it was the posting IP address that gave it away, but it was more likely that the text of the post wasn’t full of fart jokes.
    In any event, I’ll note for Anon1811 that if you can’t put your own name (or at least a consistent internet handle) to something, then it probably isn’t worth the time it takes to skim over it. In NCO-speak, if you don’t have the balls to own your words, don’t say them.

  30. Anonymous says:

    soonergrunt: It was the lack of fart jokes that gave it away. That and the lunacy of the position argued by the guy who stole your handle.

    Anon 1851 (I would tell you my name, but then I’d have to kill you).

  31. yguy says:

    Under the statute in place at the time, he would not have been automatically granted citizenship due to his mother’s age and time spent in the US.

    You’re probably thinking (if memory serves) of 8USC1401(g), which was amended in the 80’s. To apply the amended version to Obama would be to admit he was not a citizen at birth.

    There is also 8USC1409(c), under which Obama might be deemed a citizen by birth if he was born out of wedlock.

    The problem with any federal statute that confers citizenship by birth on the foreign born is that it’s not clear what constitutional provision authorizes such legislation.

  32. soonergrunt says:

    Via Talking Points Memo, we learn today that Orly Taitz, Esq, DDS (or is it DDS, Esq?) has filed a motion to reconsider with the SCOTUS claiming that new evidence has come to light regarding the President’s citizenship.

    Also, too, she cc’ed the motion to US Civil Rights Commission, the Solicitor General, and the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/orly_taitz_claims_that_obama_is_undermining_her_bi.php?ref=fpi