March 17, 2009
UPDATED: Decided it was better to separate the explanation from Leo Donofrio’s post about his interactions with Danny Boy Bickell.
Went back in the archives and found some of Leo Donofrio’s posts from his original site to give a little background of Danny Bickell’s behavior.
FYI, Donofrio’s challenge had nothing to do with the birth certificate per se. In fact, he conceded that he believed barry was probably born in Hawaii. He challenged on the basis of barry being a dual citizen with dual allegiance at birth through his father’s conferred British citizenship - Kenya being under colonial rule in 1961.
The Supreme Court didn’t by it - or so it seemed at the time. Now one wonders if they ever even saw or read any of the Danny boy embargoed cases.
Danny boy being Danny Bickell, the ‘Stay’ clerk at the US Supreme Court, who Orly Taitz outed to the world in front of Justice Roberts, implicating him with docket tampering in both Donofrio’s and Taitz’s cases. (I don’t recall him being a problem with Berg - but not certain.) But it’s not exactly new news. “Birther’s” are familiar with him, if only as that bot clerk at the Supreme Court. He’s not a mystery and he hasn’t been trying to hide his acts, which made him all the more aggravating - his audacity.
There are ways to attempt to hide ones illegal intents that he didn’t even try to implement - so sure he was he wouldn’t get caught. He allegedly (most definitely) talked to multiple people, including the principle lawyers in two different proceedings on recordable phones that he wasn’t going to do what the law compelled him to do - even in the face of threatened sanction recommendations. And then he went so far as to take Lightfoot v Bowen completely off the docket after barry was inagurated. Like he thought he was untouchable.
Might very well stil be. There’s always the clause that could save barry: for the sake of national security, and in this cases it would be fuily justified.
Justified. Nothing could ever make what he did justifiable.
It was a violation of the highest order, made worse by his “Constitutional law professor” (lecturer) and President of the Harvard Law Review experience. And then there’s his bogus claim of transparency. It’s taken over for the Iraq fairy tale, which he confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt, with his politically expedient (what else) decision on troop withdrawal from Iraq.
30-50K “non-combat troops” left behind?
What does it say to a non-corrupted prosecutor when someone does what Danny allegedly did before anything could be decide on?
That he knows the decision could possibly go the other way - else why bother? Why bother now? The Inauguration is over - it was from the beginning.
With Donofrio v Wells, Danny refused to file the Stay until after the election took place. It was supposedly accepted and denied by Justice Souter on Nov 6th. Donofrio asked Bickell be investigated. He wasn’t. Though I’m not sure how far Donofrio went.
With Taitz’s case, Lightfoot v Bowen, Danny removed it from the Supreme Court docket the day after barry was inaugurated. This is how sure he was no one would care - even if the “birthers” cried foul.
When you read the blue highlighted portion of Donofrio’s posts concerning Bickell, recall that this was back in November and that what Bickell did (did not do) prevented an emergency stay of the general election. No matter the outcome - no matter if the case had a snowball’s chance - a bot at the Supreme Court helped his leader get elected.
This is the Supreme Court of the United States, folks. The new Chicago style Washington.
The Change we can believe in!
***
(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on the meeting
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance.
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)
2 comments:
copied/pasted from an attorney writing in a forum. Hope it sheds some light:
"He has been referred to on the blogs as the "Stay Clerk" which would indicate that he is the person responsible for handling and processing stay applications that come to the court.
Basically if you are ever representing some poor shmuck who is about to be executed, Danny Bickell is your go-to guy when you need a stay.
Donofrio and Orly have run into problems because they are too stupid to know the difference between a "stay" and an "injunction" -so they show up to the court with "stay" applications when they are entitled to no such thing. (Berg,, too, but at least Berg had the sense to also file a Petition for Cert, thereby giving himself some sort of procedural toehold -- since he was appealing from a federal district court denial, there was some logic to the process).
Since Donofrio and Orly brought state actions to sue their respective secretaries of state... there was no federal question involved, and hence no Supreme Court jurisdiction. So they didn't belong in the Supreme Court in any case..... but if they were there, they needed to file the right sort of papers.
So Donofrio sends his "stay" application to the Supreme Court, and Bickell doesn't file it and subsequently tells him that it can't be accepted because its not a proper application. Donofrio throws a tantrum, gets all the birthers to phone up the court and DEMAND!!!!! that his stay application be filed -- so Bickell agrees to file it if the phone calls will stop. Of course it is denied..... because it's the wrong kind of application in the wrong format to start with..
Not one of these clowns has ever filed any document with the Supreme Court that would provide a proper basis for jurisdiction, even if the Court wanted to take some sort of action.
If these idiots would read Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules they would see that the Clerk has AUTHORITY to refuse to file crap. It says it right there on the first page:
THE CLERK HAS AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO FILE PAPER THAT IS TO CRAPPY TO MEET OUR STANDARDS.
OK. It's worded a little nicer:
It says the clerk "has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules."
But it means the same thing.
So basically, Mr. Bickell did his job the way he is supposed to be doing it."
You might not believe it, but, sounds about right to me.
Hi Anon - all well and good but it doesn't explain the fact that the Justices distributed and conferenced Donforio's, Wrotnowski's, Berg's and Taitz's cases. So there must have been some legitimacy for them to be there in the first place. What they decided doesn't matter as far as Bickell - they (alleedly) looked at them before they denied them.
Justice Roberts agreed to look at Orly Taitz's cases in front of a University of Idaho audience caught on video, audio, print and of course eyewitness. He will have to do something about it. Not sure what she expects as it was a stay for the general election so the case is in reality moot.
She also outed Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts so an investigation of some sort will have to take place. Really all that anyone wanted. He did something with the Lightfoot v Bowen case - it was no "glitch".
Post a Comment