Lightfoot v Bowen, Dr Orly Taitz, Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, March 12, 2009, Application For Emergency Stay AND/OR Injunction, Gail Lightfoot, Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California

From Dr. Orly Taitz, March 12, 2009:

“No. 08A524
In The
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 
Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley
 
 
v.
 
 
Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California
 
 
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
 
 
Orly Taitz, DDS.
Attorney for the Petitioners
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411
 
TO: THE HONORABLE  JOHN J. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE                                 
Motion to Reconsider
Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:
The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009.
The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.
On January 8, 2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by the Congress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requesting this Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to the terms of the Constitution.
 According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timely according to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequent confirmation of Congress.
The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided.
Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21,  2009, one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone  prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases.  However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased,  This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.
 Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, that the case never disappeared.  However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date. 
Further, a few days before hearing this petition in the conference of the full Supreme Court, eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices had a private closed door meeting with Mr. Obama, who was a party of interest and subject of this petition, wherein there may have been ex parte communication that prejudiced the petitioners.
Further, on March 9,  2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs.
At a reception held in Los Angeles, California , on March 9th, Justice Scalia has told the audience of some 300 attorneys, members of the media, business and entertainment industries, that the cases are heard in the Supreme Court based on importance. He reiterated that it is not the beauty of the argument and legal reasoning, but importance of the case.
The instant case, dealing with a fundamental Constitutional question, affecting each and every citizen of these United States, in alleging a complete lack of legitimacy in the presidency of Barack Obama is a question of great public importance.
  It was supposedly heard by the full conference of nine justices on January 23rd and yet, the Justices did not think this issue to be important enough to forward to the next step, to the open court for argument on the merits of the case.
At the same time it was announced on the radio that the Supreme Court has heard a case dealing with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco industry; and two Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have written lengthy opinions on this issue.
 The undersigned reiterates that at issue is the probable illegal usurpation of our highest elected office by a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama.
Were these allegations the case, and taken true as pled for the purposes of this Motion, any party illegally usurping the position of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all the US Armed forces and assuming control of our nuclear arsenal would be in a position to devastate not only the United States but the world.
The  only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.
21.             Attached hereto and incorporated by reference  is a letter from the magazine World Net Daily, showing that 326,841 American Citizens have signed the petition to hear this matter. Aside from the petition, World Net Daily has delivered to the Supreme Court 540,000 individual form petitions: 60,000 for each Justice, times nine. Additionally, it is estimated that some 100,000 Americans have faxed or mailed petitions drafted by themselves, not form petitions. This means that each Justice should have heard from roughly  half a million American citizens, urging them to hear this case on the merits. While undersigned counsel questioned Justice Scalia during above mentioned book signing in Los Angeles, as to what happened, why the case was not forwarded to the open court hearing on the merits, he had absolutely no clue about the case, not this, nor similar cases by Wrotnowski and Donofrio. It is astounding that the Justice would get letters from half a million American citizens, urging him to hear the case on the merits, and wouldn’t remember one thing about the case. Again, the only reasonable explanation is that the clerks have never shown the Justices either this case Lightfoot v Bowen or letters from half a million American citizens supporting this issue. Due to the fact, that above mentioned became known to the under signed counsel only on March 9th 2009, a motion for reconsideration is filed at this late date due to special circumstances. 
22.             Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States,  FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.
23.             At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.
 
Attachments
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE  2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS WITH REQUEST THAT APPLICATION BE TREATED AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION. Filed December 11th, 2008.
SUGGESTION FOR RECUSAL OF HONORABL E CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY. Filed January 12th 2009.
SUPPLEMENT, MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT UNDER US CONSTITUITON ARTICLE 2, §1, AND AMENDMENT20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) AND (4). Duly filed January 15, 2009, not docket and not distributed to the Justices due to the refusal by clerk Bickel.
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR EMEGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS. Supplement is based on the Executive Order by President Bush, issued January16, 2009. EXECUTIVE ORDER; GRANTING RECIPROCITY ON EXCEPTED SERVICES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FITNESS AND REINVESTIGATING INDIVIDUALS IN POSITIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST.  Filed January 21, 2009. 
Petition letter from World Net Daily to the Supreme Court signed by 326,841 American citizens.
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”
 
___________________________, March 12, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/motion-to-reconsider-lightfoot-v-bowen.aspx

18 responses to “Lightfoot v Bowen, Dr Orly Taitz, Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, March 12, 2009, Application For Emergency Stay AND/OR Injunction, Gail Lightfoot, Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California

  1. I sure do hope Orly gets some motion (pun intended) on this one.

    But I don’t think she’s going to get very far.

  2. @JeffM why do u think that?

    Kathy

  3. (reposted from downstairs)

    Now that BO has indicated he might call up the National Guard to federal service in the conflict along the US-Mexican border, it is time to re-visit my original proposal to use NG Plaintiffs in a federal Declaratory Judgment suit to determine his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS.

    Obama Says National Guard Might Be Sent To US-Mexican Border
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4861510.shtml

    Early last November, I posted a memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! This explained my then new solution to gaining standing to challenge BO’s Constitutional eligibility in federal court, by using military Plaintiffs. In that memo, I specifically proposed using National Guard, about to be deployed. As I recently explained in detail on my blog, in responses to comments posted by my readers, NG are under the control of the Governor of the state until called up to serve in the military and are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until federalized. Plus, the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, under which my Complaint is brought, acts as sort of a class action mechanism, without having to certify the class. That is, the ruling received by one Plaintiff applies to all similarly situated Plaintiffs. In effect, this means that if one Plaintiff gets called up to active duty, meaning he is federalized and under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, he can drop out; and another NG member not yet called up can be substituted, no harm, no foul.

    Please pass the word about this safe viable option to vet the CIC.

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

  4. Kathy,

    I explained it in the last post. It’s because:

    1. Mr. Daniel Bickell, the mastermind clerk with a propensity of obstruction, has sabotaged 3 of the 4 major eligibility cases, yet remains gainfully employeed at SCOTUS.

    2. Justice Scalia couldn’t “recall” Orly’s case. Ironic considering they just looked at it a little over a month ago in full conference.

    The scotus is corrupt along with the rest of the government. We must face this and move on, using different techniques to resolving this Constitutional Crisis.

  5. JeffM……..
    Hi …Wouldn’t it seem like the SCOTUS twerp would be thinking “What if I get caught doing this crap? This bird either has the partnership of the Justices or a set of footballs.

  6. The question now is how will the public deal with the apparent corruption in government that unveils itself daily. BO is losing credibility as we speak, and despite efforts to manipulate the markets that will continue.

    As I see there are few options:

    1. The legal path that is being thwarted daily.

    2. The military path, that is refusal to follow BO’s orders,that is slowly developing, but remains unclear.

    3. The political path which will require waiting till 2010, possibly 2012.

    Are there really any others?

    If these options continue to be closed off to the public, it will be like cornering an animal. The uprising will be the only option left. Let’s pray it doesn’t come to that.

  7. Venice…………
    In the town that I live in there are Veterans organisations,just as there are in most cities. While I speak only for myself, I can tell you. and everyone that all of us are MAD AS HELL. I hope that an uprising never occurs because should it happen BLOOD will run in the gutters. And some of it will be our own, and that of our family nembers.

  8. perhaps it is time to send a team of Sandy Bergers, Daniel Oceans 11, 12, and 13, to Hawaii

    and

    Kenya??? No?

    Imagine the possibilities:
    ring ring

    Obama White House can I help you

    yes sir, we have the original birth certificate here, you have until noon to resign the position or we go public with it

    imagine

  9. The comments posted earlier by Marty Didier makes me wonder about the truthfulness of his comments. Yet we cannot afford to ignore any of it. Such comments sometimes have a strange way of being the truth.
    I am feeling much better now,and have talked with some of my friends from my Navy days. I have been encouraged to keep on hunting for the POE,and will do so as soon as I can. I have been trying a lot of specialised computer searches. I have learned why many of the past searches were abandoned. It seems that while public records are public records, they aren’t necesserily available to the public as such. Roughly translated it means that the records being sought are available only to an officer of a court I personally look upon this as a REAL load of MANURE. I had an extremely talented researcher take an extended look for the file in the INS archives, that might contain the POE. This is a PERMANENT FILE, and certainly in the public domain yet only an officer of a court can access these files. BULL****—,BULL****__, BULL****> I WILL FIND A WAY._

  10. oldsalt76,

    Ain’t that the truth, the whole truth, and nothin’ but the whole truth!

    That’s how we know the justices are “on the take”, or are in a position where they are being blackmailed by some unforseen power. Either way they are corrupt as evident in their actions/lack thereof.

  11. DaVerg…….
    Did you say”Sandy Burglars”? That is Rush’s name for him also. And yes I agree. Or maybe a couple of NIXON’S Watergate GOONS. Certainly if Obama can have his own private GOON squad we can too.

  12. i hear ya old salt

    anyone on for a “cruise” to South Seas ??
    Gilligan’s island? Anyone?

    I am done with my strudel, need to move on.

  13. decentAmerican

    I just love Orly! Agree or disagree with her, you got to admit, this woman has got cajones, and audacity, and definite courage, especially the way the wacko Obots have attacked her. I pray for her safety, God bless you Orly.

    What a wonderful way to call out Scalia…..how many opportutnies do you have to talk to a SC justice in the flesh! She used that opportunity to the fullest, and he was caught red handed being ignorant!

    And Venice, interms of “paths”, if we can’t trust our justice system, there is one and only one sure way to get success…. the Public Opinion Path. However, the media has squandered this, so we can’t trust them. All we need is definitive proof, so if Berg or Pidgeon is holding something, as they claim, then release it to Fox news or Drudge, and that will get attention that can’t be ignored.

    speaking of Berg, what’s going on? His Obamacrimes site is not frozen with no new blogs for days. I hope he is OK, he is another patriot.

  14. If you google Marty Didier, Northbrook, Illinois, there is a lot about his writings. One was dated 2007. Even his divorce information is available to view. He has been a commenter on many an article in various newspapers. Google it and take a look. He better get a body guard if what he says is true.

  15. I suspect Obama is Kenyan born and NOT our legal President – but there’s a big problem: If Obama’s parents can be proved legally UNMARRIED that would dramatically affect deliberations in eligibility and Quo Warranto hearings. On current evidence such hearings will NEVER find against Obama.

    Taitz and Donofrio claim that Obama was a British citizen at birth and thus ineligible for the Presidency. However British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically ONLY TO CHILDREN OF A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE:

    Simple:

    – Obama Sr was legally married in Kenya.
    – a man who contracts two legal marriages is a bigamist.
    – British law did not consider the children of a bigamous marriage legitimate.
    – Obama was the child of a bigamous marriage.
    – The child of bigamous marriage in a foreign country (eg US) could not inherit British citizenship from his father.

    This means that Obama could not be a British citizen at birth unless he was PHYSICALLY BORN in Kenya or someplace else under British jurisdiction. Nothing passed to him through his father.

    Detailed:

    1 Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was by native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriage” for black Kenyans was absolutely legal. Customary marriage for white Kenyans was not permitted: their marriages required official licenses and generated certificates. These two forms of marriage could not be contracted simultaneously to different spouses: that was bigamy under the Kenya Marriage Act, Chapter 50, 1902 and the Kenya Penal Code of 1930, Section 171.

    Hawaii did\does not recognize “common-law” mariages. Would the perfectly legal British Kenyan customary marriage, between Obama Sr and his wife Kezia Grace, which had no official certificate, be ruled by a US court in 1961 as being “common law” ? If it would, Obama’s parents were legally married under US law; if Obama Sr’s customary marriage was not “common law”, then Obama’s parents COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY MARRIED by any authority within US jurisdiction.

    2 It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, ie for a person customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse – thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s marriage to Ann Dunham was BIGAMOUS AND ILLEGAL IN KENYA UNDER BRITISH LAW. Obama Jr was born in America to bigamous parents that could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British law. Any QW or SCOTUS hearing will rule Obama is a natural born US citizen because he only had one citizenship at birth, if “natural born” is not strictly interpreted as requiring two US parents (and who expects them to do that ?)

    Donofrio’s and Taitz’s central arguments against Obama’s eligiibilty, (that place of birth was immaterial, that British citizenship was transmitted through Obama Sr, that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents) have collapsed. Obama’s birthplace has now become the supreme and decisive issue. Unless Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth is ruled irrelevant (correct arguments exist) and a court examines the original 1961 birth record, Obama will remain “legally” and happily in office. For Donofrio to reject that assessment as beneath contempt works only for “President” Obama’s side of the dispute. (Donofrio recently acknowledged “President” Obama’s legitimacy.)

    Donofrio and Taitz refused to add these ideas to their blogs, even though posted in a friendly and cooperative spirit. Donofrio insists that certain problems must not be discussed, even if they are sure to undermine his case and mean that on present evidence his case will fail. This is extremely disturbing. I leave it to others to ask why.

  16. Orly Taitz DID add these ideas to her blog.

    Orly is phenomenal but she’s relying on Donofrio errors instead of doing her own research.

  17. Not only that, but Orly’s making another big mistake. She’s basing her whole justification for confronting Roberts in person — a highly unorthodox tactic — on her claim that her cases aren’t getting a fair hearing in SCOTUS because she is being deliberately sabotaged by the clerks there!

    If Roberts concludes that this is just a loony-tunes idea, then Orly’s credibility is gone. Forever.

  18. Ms Orly is finished. She decided to wait until the last minute to reply to Berg’s suit and appears to have defaulted. She gave an illustrative account of why her attempts are thwarted. She just doesn’t care.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s