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 CUCH
CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY
EXISTENCES OF HE 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 briefwith 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 Supplemental 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.
2. 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
PROTEST MARCH UPON OBAMA
No comments:
Post a Comment