• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09Page 1 of 5
No. 08A524In 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 2008ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIAELECTORS
Orly Taitz, ESQ.
 
 Attorney for the Petitioners
 
26302 La Paz
 
Mission Viejo CA 92691
 
949-683-5411
 
 
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09Page 2 of 5
TO: THE HONORABLE JOHN J. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE
 
Motion to Reconsider
 
Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motionfor reconsideration due to the following reasons:
 1.
 
The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his ownauthority 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, whenthere is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.
3.
 
On January 8
,
2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by theCongress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requestingthis Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to theterms of the Constitution.
4.
 
 According to the 20
th
amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president protempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
5.
 
This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timelyaccording to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequentconfirmation of Congress.
6.
 
The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in thedocket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with anexplanation. 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 theSupreme Court on January 21, 2009, one day after the inauguration and twodays before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte bysomeone prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
8.
 
Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the mediaand state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the eveningof January the 22
nd
, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on themorning of January 23
rd
.
9.
 
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
 10.
 
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, calledthe court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk puther on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailabledue to a computer error that affected all cases. However Ms. Ward could clearlysee other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had notbeen erased, This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ asthe search term.
 11.
 
Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, thatthe case never disappeared. However, a number of citizens have written
 
Orly Taitz – SCOTUS Motion to Reconsider, 3-12-09Page 3 of 5
affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docketand reappearing at a later date.
12.
 
Further, a few days before hearing this petition in the conference of the fullSupreme Court, eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices had a private closeddoor meeting with Mr. Obama, who was a party of interest and subject of thispetition, wherein there may have been ex parte communication that prejudicedthe 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 AssociateJustice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as towhy the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument.Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledgeabout any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challengedObama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that theclerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarizedthem in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to theplaintiffs.
14.
 
 At a reception held in Los Angeles, California, on March 9
th
, Justice Scalia hastold the audience of some 300 attorneys, members of the media, business andentertainment industries, that the cases are heard in the Supreme Court basedon importance. He reiterated that it is not the beauty of the argument and legalreasoning, but importance of the case.
15.
 
The instant case, dealing with a fundamental Constitutional question, affectingeach 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 publicimportance.
 16.
 
It was supposedly heard by the full conference of nine justices on January 23
rd
 and yet, the Justices did not think this issue to be important enough to forwardto 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 hasheard a case dealing with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobaccoindustry; and two Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have writtenlengthy 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 andpossibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a BarackHussein Obama.
 19.
 
Were these allegations the case, and taken true as pled for the purposes of thisMotion, any party illegally usurping the position of the President of the UnitedStates and Commander in Chief of all the US Armed forces and assumingcontrol of our nuclear arsenal would be in a position to devastate not only theUnited States but the world.
 20.
 
The only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that theclerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the SupremeCourt each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...