29 votes

BOMBSHELL: Behind-the-Scenes Corruption at United States Supreme Court

By this time next week, the United States Supreme Court *should* have held a conference regarding whether or not they will hear a case that involves Obama's eligibility.

In Orly Taitz' (the attorney's) briefing, she makes an allegation that is a BOMBSHELL.

She alleges that over the past few years, as court challenges regarding Obama's eligibility have been working their way through the system, court clerks within the U.S. Supreme Court have been tossing out Obama eligibility cases WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!

Here is a quote from her brief to the court:

"Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen 084524 by the same attorney Taitz was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008 [sic -- she means 2009], ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public, media, state representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is high treason, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are."

Here is her brief in full:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What happened with Obamacare?

John Roberts changed the law in order to rule it constitutional, which is unconstitutional. The judicial branch can't change the law, it's the responsibility of the legislative branch to change the law. Roberts ruled it a tax instead of a penalty, he doesn't have that power.

I wouldn't trust John Roberts.

As Tom Woods so aptly

As Tom Woods so aptly describes, it is utter foolishness to allow a part of the Federal Government to decide if the federal government should have less power. Same here. Separation of branches? lol

Corruption at US Supreme Court...

When Robert became, not just a Suprems Court Justice, but "Chief" Justice I smelled a rat. When his vote carried Obamacare I came to the conclusion that the reason he went straight to Chief Justice was that he was blackmailable...I think they have bedroom videos of him either with a dead girl or a live boy.

Don't count on his vote for this issue.

ecorob's picture

When I saw a sitting judge of the scotus...

go on the Colbert Show last month I knew they had lost all credibility (at least sonia sotomayor has).

This is unacceptable to me to see this. Respect for the position should not be so shallow and vanity so deep as to allow for this narcissistic exposure.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Lies Only Thing Keeping This Thing Afloat

In a state that can only be held together via lies, cover up and conspiracy, what do we expect at this point? Good example - what would happen if the Treasury/Fed and "regulators" actually regulated the big banks? They'd collapse and then those same entities would have to bail them out. So they won't do that and instead will just ignore their abuses and prop them up. They have the audacity to bail them out and then go after them in court - presumably using the governments own money! What would happen if the Supreme Court actually took and deliberated the Obama birth certificate issue? It MIGHT destroy our entire political system. Thus they won't take it. Truth is now a threat to the survival of our Republic, at least, as it was founded or intended.

I gave up on

the court after ObamaCare....they too have been compromised.

What state atty filed this case?

Is there a Docket number?


Here is SCOTUS link


No attorney general filed the case. It is appeal from a case where other presidential candidates sued.

The interesting thing is that Kennedy denied cert, but then Roberts gave cert. Roberts of all people???

After the healthcare debacle, I would expect Roberts to hide from something like this unless he has regrets of what he did.

Anyway ... schedule for conference on 2/15, which will be held to decide *IF* they will put it on the calendar to be heard during the upcoming SCOTUS session.

Takes four justices to put it on the calendar.

The bombshell here is the allegation that OTHER cases made their way to the SCOTUS docket without at least some justices knowing they were there.

Another allegation she makes is that one case was supposedly denied cert by Thomas, but there is no record of Thomas even getting the application for cert.

It is court clerks behind the scenes at SCOTUS who are running interference for Barry by throwing out cases and deleting them from docket. That's the allegation here.

OR the Clerks are the fall guys as

the house of cards starts to fall. Suprised about Roberts, isnt he the CFR member?

We have to always remember that Barry Satora or what ever name he chooses is only a willing puppet, and the shot callers are still calling the shots behind the scenes.



I hate to see morons throw this term around like English Monarchs. Treason under the constitution has a very limited definition:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Assuming the term 'Enemies' means someone against whom the US Congress has declared war, the only two 'traitors' that come to mind are Abraham Lincoln and Benedict Arnold, by virtue of the first and second clause respectively.

Leges sine moribus vanae


You must be one of those DP elites.


The Declaration of Independence is one of the organic laws of our nation and it says, quote:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

How can they then write in the Constitution that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them..."? One of our founding principles is suddenly negated in a section of our founding compact and the inconsistancy is mindboggling. I do not know how to get around that one.

But and after the first definition you seem to totally dismiss the remaining offenses for which the charge of treason can be laid.

"...or in adhering to their Enemies..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition: Enemy - “1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another;”

Has Obama been inflicting injury upon the people of the United States? I guess that would depend on your perspective, but I'm hopeful that by highlighting this one action you would agree that his drone kills on the Al-alaki family without due process would constitute 'inflicting injury'. Does the unconstitutionality of his action need elaborating, too?

United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15.254, meaning of: Adhering - Joining, leagued with, cleaving to; as, “adhering to the enemies of the United States.” Rebels, being citizens, are not “enemies,” within the meaning of the constitution; hence a conviction for treason, in promoting a rebellion, cannot be sustained under that branch of the constitutional definition which speaks of “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Clearly 'rebels' can't be 'enemies' nor be charged with 'adhering'.
Definition: Rebel - Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 3,
"The name of rebels is given to all subjects who unjustly take up arms against the ruler of the society, [or the lawful and constitutional government,] whether their view be to deprive him of the supreme authority or to resist his lawful commands In some particular instance, and to impose conditions on him."

Since Obama is the 'ruler of the society' he can't also be a 'rebel' in this instance. But he can be the 'enemy'. And any person who 'joins, or is in league with' an 'enemy' can be charged with treason.

Now lets look at 'aid and comfort'.

Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 62, 24 L. Ed. 992; U. S. v. Greathouse, 4 Sawy. 472, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254.
"Help; support; assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element in the crime of treason, the giving of “aid and comfort” to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be successful and actually render assistance."

It looks like someone at the Supreme Court was 'assisting' the 'enemy' by deleting cases against the 'enemy' from the docket.

TREASON! You may like to read the following, too:

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Libyan and and Syrian Rebels included al-Qaeda Members

Which would seem to me the textbook definition of aiding our enemy...and thus be TREASON! Of course the "war on terror" is all a ruse but if Obama and our illegitimate, so called rulers, declared war on al-qaeda and then whenever the mood strikes they provide them material support...how is that not treason HomoVastans?

breaking down the laws of the land (constitution)

has been ruled as giving aid to the enemies of the United States. aka. Treason

Bombshell? May I see pictures. Let me be the judge.

It would make my father so proud to know I become a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.

John Marshall Clemens (1798 ~ 1847) Father of Samuel Clemens.

In 1839 he resettled his family in Hannibal, more promisingly located beside the Mississippi River. He set up a general store and opened a law office. His aptitude was for law, which paid the least, and his financial position declined. In 1841, he mortgaged his land and sold off the family's one remaining household slave. He sat on a circuit court jury and became a justice of the peace. The family managed, but in 1846 he was cheated in a business deal which almost ruined him. He hoped to revive his fortunes by being elected clerk of the surrogate court. Though a favorite for the position, he campaigned tirelessly from house-to-house, and was voted in by a large majority. After riding to the county seat to take the oath of office, he returning home in late February through a rain-storm at night, arriving home bitterly cold drenched. He soon contracted pneumonia.

Sam Clemens, who was then 11 years old, remembered seeing his father on his deathbed, as he tenderly put his arm around his sister Pamela's neck and drew her down to kiss her, saying "Let me die." A gesture of affection from him that he had never witnessed before.

At the time, the family were living in the "Pilaster House". John Clemens died upstairs, aged 49. His body was buried in a cemetery near Cardiff Hill, and moved to Mount Olivet Cemetery in 1876.

The untimely death of "Judge Clemens" left the family facing hard times. The following year, in 1848, Sam began his first job, as a printer's apprentice for Joseph Ament, who published the Missouri Courier.
John M. Clemens Justice of the Peace Office
The front room exhibit space will expand the story of John Marshall Clemens in Hannibal, and will explain the role he played in the local legal system as Justice of the Peace. The second exhibit space facing the courtyard will adapt a story from Twain's own childhood as recounted in his Autobiography. http://www.marktwainmuseum.org/index.php/research/museum-his...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

If anyone lives near DC

she is asking for people with signs to call the attention of the justices to her case next week.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


Corruption at the SCOTUS, a bombshell?

Seriously guys...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Anything is possible

If Chief Justice John Roberts, supposedly one of the conservatives on the Supreme Court, can find ObamaCare constitutional, anything is possible.
Once the Supreme Court is compromised and corrupted, injustice will reign supreme.

Makes me wonder what other "computer errors" occurred.

Thanks for posting.

I can believe corruption

in banana republics, but it couldn't possibly happen in the freest country in the world. There must be some mistake. Mr. Roberts would never let corruption happen on his watch. I just can't believe it.

What the Hell do you think

the Supreme Court's action in the election of 2000? Stoping the vote count and selecting George W. Bush as President is totally unconstitutional.

A friend who is an attorney said that when she saw their behavior with regards to that election......she know that even the Supreme Court was Corrupted.

However how could Orley have made a mistake in the year 2008 when it should have been 2009?

Of course it would get thrown out with a mistake like that!

sorry Reenie

It was tongue-in-cheek, I was joking. I know they're almost all corrupt in DC.