Educating Orly – Original Jurisdiction

Orly complains that

Previously I submitted a case to the Supreme court “Easterling et al v Obama et al”. This was a case, where I asked for a leave of court to file under the original jurisdictionof the Supreme Court a writ of Mandamus for the ambassadors of different countries to provide information on citizenship and entrance visas for Barack Hussein obama or Barry Soetoro. When the case is against theambassadors of other countries, there is an original jurisdiction in the Supremwe court. a clrk for the original jurisdictions, Cynthia Rapp, refused to file the pleadings, even though it was from a 100 members of US military, goping up to Major General.

Ignoring for the moment the poor grammar and spelling, Orly is also wrong, the Supreme Court does not have unique original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors. Furthermore, Orly is mistaken that by just naming an ambassador, the case becomes one of original jurisdiction. Orly was just trying to short-circuit the normal route lawsuits would take. In this case, since it is a case of Quo Warranto against a federal officer, there is only one lower court where such cases may be filed. And that is the District of Washington DC. Furthermore, in cases involving Ambassadors, the Supreme Court does not hold exclusive original jurisdiction. In fact, jurisdiction is shared with the lower courts where such cases historically originate.

28 USC § 1351. Consuls, vice consuls, and members of a diplomatic mission as defendant which states

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against—
(1) consuls or vice consuls of foreign states; or
(2) members of a mission or members of their families (as such terms are defined in section 2 of the Diplomatic Relations Act).

and

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

Original Jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Of course, we all know that Orly and her plaintiffs lack standing to file a Quo Warranto, and thus her somewhat hilarious attempt to file a Quo Warranto with the Supreme Court under the guise of original jurisdiction by including some ambassadors, is quite hilarious. But, as expected, the capable clerks of the Supreme Court quickly realized that the filing did not meet the requirements and thus, legally, rejected it.

On my blog, I addressed some of Orly’s follies in Easterling

Keyes v Obama – Doc 69 Ex: 10 – Easterling

Note: The infamous Easterling case which was never accepted/filed

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
Easterling et al., Movants, Applicants, & Complainants
v.
Barack Obama et al., Respondents

RULE 17 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INCLUDING BILL OF COMPLAINT AND
APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN OR PER QUO WARRANTO

Rule 17.3-17.4 of the Rules of This United States Supreme Court state as
follows:

3. The initial pleading shall be preceded by a motion for leave to file, and may be accompanied by a brief in support of the motion. Forty copies of each document shall be filed, with proof of service. Service shall be as required by Rule 29, except that when an adverse party is a State, service shall be made on both the Governor and the Attorney General of that State.

4. The case will be placed on the docket when the motion for leave to file and the initial pleading are filed with the Clerk. The Rule 38(a) docket fee shall be paid at that time.

2009-07-02 Orly Taitz – Resubmitting Easterling et al v Obama

Note that the following was reported by Orly Taitz and could not be independently verified.

I have resubmitted Easterling et al v Obama et al in the form of Motion for Leave of Court to submit under the original jurisdiction. I called the Supreme Court and was told that the clerk for original jurisdiction is Cynthia Rapp 202-479-3000 extention 3014.

I inquired about the case and she said: “don’t bother submitting, it will be denied, it is only for disputes between the states”. I stated to her that article 3 of the Constitution allows Original jurisdiction of the Supreme court for cases involving ambassadors and and ministers as well. She asked if I am an ambassador and I told her that I am not and I don’t have to be. Constitution does not specify that the ambassadors have to be plaintiffs, which means that they can be defendants. Her response was -listen to me, it will be denied. I protested by saying that it is not up to the clerks to decide, it is up to the justices of the Supreme Court to decide whether they will exercise their right to hear the cases under original non-exclusive jurisdiction or not. It is really not up to the clerks.  She needs to docket the case and forward it to the justices. She responded by saying: “It is up to us, we do the screening”. I responded, that they can do the screening of technical errors, not decision on the merits of the case. Even with technical errors there were precedents from different Federal courts, that if the case mostly complies, the clerk has to docket it with the notation of the error, to be addressed and corrected by the attorney of record. At that point she asked me if I am an attorney. I told her, yes I am, what about you? She said “OK, submit it”.

Note: Cynthia Rapp is correct that the clerks get to decide whether or not submissions to the Court follow established procedures and in case of Original Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court only has exclusive Original Jurisdiction is cases between two States. In cases involving ambassadors, Consuls etc, the Supreme Court does not have exclusive Jurisdiction especially since the legislative Branch has granted exclusive Jurisdiction in these cases to the District Court. It is even less clear that a case which only indirectly involves Ambassadors falls under Original Jurisdiction but assuming that it does, the combination Quo Warranto and Cases involving Consuls would mean that the District Court of DC remains the only viable option. In order to qualify for Quo Warranto, the plaintiffs have to petition the Attorney General of DC or the United States to file such a case with the DC Courts.

Orly v SCOTUS – Or why SCOTUS will deny Easterling

On Orly’s website we observe sloppy legal research when it is argued:

She asked if I am an ambassador and I told her that I am not and I don’t have to be. Constitution does not specify that the ambassadors have to be plaintiffs, which means that they can be defendants.”

If this clerk is going to be deciding which cases go forward or not, she should at least research the precedents of the court she is working for regarding the issue at hand. Orly is correct. Ambassadors and ministers do not have to be the plaintiffs:

Boers v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884)

The plaintiff below, Preston, was a citizen of that state, while the defendant was the consul at the port of New York for the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden.

Does this person truly not understand the issue here? It’s the issue of Original Jurisdiction. Orly is trying to bypass the lower Courts by claiming that her case is one of original jurisdiction. For this an ambassador has to be party to the case. However, the Supreme Court does not hold exclusive jurisdiction and can refuse to hear the case until a lower court has done so. In the case cited above, it was NOT an original jurisdiction case as the quote provided clearly shows but rather a case which made its way to the Supreme Court through the Circuit Court of NY.

This action was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff below, Preston, was a citizen of that state, while the defendant was the consul at the port of New York for the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden.

The case in fact explains

The constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to this Court of all cases affecting consuls, does not prevent Congress from conferring original jurisdiction, in such cases, also, upon the subordinate courts of the Union.

In other words, original jurisdiction of all cases affecting consuls does not mean that only the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction. Especially when Congress has conferred original jurisdiction upon the subordinate courts. In Orly’s case, which I believe is a Quo Warranto, Congress has established clearly what court holds original jurisdiction, and it is not the Supreme Court. Leo Donofrio explains. Adding ambassadors as witnesses is not going to help. See also 28 USC § 1351. Consuls, vice consuls, and members of a diplomatic mission as defendant which states

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against—
(1) consuls or vice consuls of foreign states; or
(2) members of a mission or members of their families (as such terms are defined in section 2 of the Diplomatic Relations Act).

In other words, the original jurisdiction for a Quo Warranto is with the District Court of DC, and the original jurisdiction for cases involving ambassadors is the District Court of DC. What do you think is going to happen?

From Orly’s filing

Such application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is expressly authorized by Rule 17.2 of the Rules of this Court, and in regard to a matter which will attract unparalleled national and international scrutiny thereby to supervise the normally mundane and routine process of discovery under those Rules, including but not limited to granting motions to compel or other mandates for production of documents such as vital, statistical, and otherwise (normally) confidential records concerning or relating to Barack Hussein Obama which be served upon Ms. Hillary Clinton in her capacity as the Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Gates in his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Ms. Linda Lingle in her capacity as the governor of Hawaii, His Excellency Peter N.R.O Ogengo, the right Honorable Ambassador of Kenya; H.E. the Right Honorable Sudjadnan Pamchadningrat in his capacity as Ambassador of Indonesia, H.E. the Right Honorable Sir Nigel Steinwald in his capacity as ambassador of Great Britain, H.E. the Right Honorable Hussein Haqqani in his capacity as Ambassador of Pakistan and Mr. Sergei Kislyak, Ambassador of the Russian Federation.  All of these discovery actions will constitute mandates to persons over whom this Honorable Court may and in this extraordinary case ought to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

And that’s why in this case, as in the many other cases, the plaintiffs will fail to convince the Courts

More on original jurisdiction beyond the fold.

Easterling et al v Obama et al – Orly's attempt to file with the Supreme Court

Orly has submitted what appears to be a Quo Warranto suit “Easterling v Obama to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Court has Original Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court typically will only hear cases that come from lower Courts and only in exceptional circumstances will accept an ‘Original Jurisdiction’ case. Full details about the case are lacking since the Court has yet to accept the filing and Orly has yet to provide further information about the suit other than that the clerks of the Supreme Court have noticed various procedural problems with it and have requested Orly to clarify.

William K Suter recently sent Orly a letter requiring her to state the grounds upon which the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is invoked, including citations to statutory provisions. Suter notes that Original Jurisdictions extends only to cases or controversies between two or more states or between the United States and one or more states. He mentions that section 1251 provides for original but not exclusive jursdiction over proceedings involving ambassadors.

Suter included a copy of the rules of the Court and noted that Orly is not permitted to combine pleadings.

The reference to ‘proceedings involving ambassadors’ refers to Orly’s attempt to serve summons on a variety of ambassadors, even though they are not part of the case and thus ‘Original Jurisdiction’ is likely to fail. In fact, the Courts have no jurisdiction over ambassadors, except under rare circumstances.

In a recent motion, Orly has petitioned the Court to refuse to fill retiring Judge Souter’s position until the ‘issue is resolved’. Again, I doubt that the motion will even be heard, given that the Quo Warranto filing has yet to be officially accepted.