51 votes

Orly Taitz Press Release: Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court
never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings,
they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. 

Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of
the Judiciary Committee of Congress 

Law offices of orly taitz

29839 santa margarita ste 100

Rancho santa margarita ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM
THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING
REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE
JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE
OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON
IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013   Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed an application for
stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to
the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference
of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed
Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by
a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application
is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original
application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual
justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5
justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss
the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the
pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of
the original box in which 5 copies were sent back,  as well as the
photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as
evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted
to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to
the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the
February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James
Baldin.

She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the
entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but
the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2
Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it
back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013 in a
conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought
by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and
Keith Judd  against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to
stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S.
President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate
committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and
when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination 
due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as
he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S.
Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The declaration of the
candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud,
on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security
number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of
Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt
governmental officials. Most notable example of criminal aiding and
abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii
Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a
candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions
of the U.S. Constitution” were removed in order to accommodate
ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme
Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records,
sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and  experts
showing that Barack Obama is:

  1. A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203
    from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As  a citizen of
    Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S.
    Presidency.
  2.  Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this
    court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham,  deceased
    mother   of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name
    Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of
    1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and
    signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for
    removal as listed in the passport,  is obtaining a foreign allegiance,
    it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s
    passport  when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
  3. Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff
    provided affidavits  from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph
    Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul
    Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a
    computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a
    document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation
    of the original document.  Registrar of the State of Hawaii and
    Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of
    the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to
    comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth
    certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the
    alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it
    is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine
    1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.

Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on
the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of
Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is  COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY.
In this   supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional
evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special
Investigations Unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and  former special
agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty
of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a
forgery.

Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of
Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit
of the Chief Investigator of the Special investigations of the US Coast
Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged
application for the selective service is a forgery. According to  5 USC
§ 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective
Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register
with the selective service.

(a)An individual—

(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to
register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so
register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the
individual,
shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate
we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the
Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, as such
Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S.
government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a
janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise
its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.

  1. 4.     Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama
    himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number
    xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of
    investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it
    being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia,
    immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was
    either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a
    treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA. Due to Obama’s
    use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United
    States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the
    private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his
    use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18
    month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme
    Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to
    either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of
    California for reconsideration.

 315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING
TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY:
IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS
AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES

Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a
process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor
distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to
spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they
won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on
summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And
law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for
the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the
Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304,
where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively
obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the
Supreme Court.     Taitz provided the court with Federal Express
receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for
by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden
from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees
of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by
the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance and nobody knows
where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the
United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen
A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the
Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, 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.    
In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as
Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an
application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice
Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz
demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to
deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to
Eric Fossum, the same
employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone that there is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition.
As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever
read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme
Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases,
they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a
case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S.
Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his
name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social
Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this
usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The
nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of
the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn
affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand
signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the
application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the
plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never
saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees
with unknown allegiance.   Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of
the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices
and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs,
U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to
know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason,
who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which
is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate
investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court
of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices
and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security
042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

Respectfully submitted
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Exhibit 1


Exhibit 2
Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=391915

http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/orly-taitz-press...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Bump for getting this info posted, thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

This is Important People

Regardless of your individual thoughts on her case, the reality is that the SCOTUS staff -or Criminal CABAL- is doing this.

I take it

We need to be making some calls !!

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain