Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09

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, ESQ.

Attorney for the Petitioners

26302 La Paz

Mission Viejo CA 92691

949-683-5411

Page 1 of 5
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09

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:

1. 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.
2. The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when
there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.
3. 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.
4. According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro
tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
10. 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.
11. Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, that
the case never disappeared. However, a number of citizens have written

Page 2 of 5
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09

affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket
and reappearing at a later date.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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

Page 3 of 5
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09

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.

Page 4 of 5
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09

Attachments

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

Page 5 of 5