Defend Our Freedoms Petition

March 31, 2009

Orly Taitz's site Defend our Freedoms' petition. Not sure why they are lumped together - especially Tim Geithner. He a whole separate problem. Why should he be indicted? Tax fraud? Harboring an illegal alien? barry's doing the same thing with his Inauguration attending illegal alien auntie. Another post that never got posted. Treason is going a tad far.

There's a site dedicated to petitions - ipetitions - had no idea.

PETITION

We will be running petitions and giving you a voice. We will tally the numbers.

Redress of grievances-Petition for indictment of Timothy Geitner, Barack Obama, Supreme Court clerk for stays Danny Bickel, Judges that refuse to uphold Constitution and hear the cases of Obama's ineligibility on the merits and members of Congress and Senate, that refuse to hold Judicial hearings and sign subpoenas for all of Obama's vital records.

Do you think Timothy Geitner should be indicted? Why yes and why not?

Should Obama be indicted for massive fraud of American people and treason?

Should the judges be indicted for not upholding constitution and not hearing the cases of Obama's lack of eligibility?

Should clerk Danny Bickel be indicted for interfering with the justice system?

Should attorney general Eric Holder be indicted for not investigating all of Obama's illegal acts?

Should the Congressmen and Senators be indicted for not holding judicial committee hearings on BO's illegitimacy for presidency?

Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)

March 24, 2009

Some of you have asked for more examples of Danny Boy Bickell's interference of the case before the Supreme Court. After the attack on my *Orly Taitz* posts, I am reluctant to return to her site. Leo Donofrio had several contentious interactions with him as a result of Bickell's misfiling of the case. Here is a post from Donofrio's site from November 12th, which goes to the crux of the matter.

At issue: Bickell listed Donofrio's case incorrectly on the docket by omitting that it had reached the NJ Supreme Court, which qualified it to go before the US Supreme Court.

Specifically, per Donofrio's November 12th 2:10 update post:

I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court. The Appellate Division case avoided the Constitutional issue, but the NJ Supreme Court decision raised the Constitutional issue when it specifically said in its order of denial that it had relied on "movant's papers" while at the same time it made no mention of Judge Sabatino's Appellate Division order and opinion.

Here is his regarding his conversation with Bickell.

UPDATED: 2:10 PM: Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public. THREE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED:

1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.

2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification of such disposition of my case according to his interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 22(6) which states:

"6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."

Mr. Bickell insisted that by "appropriately speedy means", the Court Rule only demands he use ordinary mail. I then asked him how is that different from the ordinary means by which you notify litigants as to the disposition of their cases? And he replied, "It's the same." And I said, then how is that by "speedy means"? And he said I wasn't entitled to a phone call or anything else. And I said, "Then it's your official position that Rule 22(6) calls for nothing more than the same notification as an ordinary case and that the words "appropriately speedy means" really have no special meaning at all. And to this he replied, "That's my official position."

He also stated that he sent me a letter informing me of the disposition of my case. I don't know what he means. On Thursday, Nov. 6th, by way of a phone conversation that I initiated, he informed me that he decided not to submit my Emergency Stay Application, which I filed four days earlier on November 3rd, to Justice Souter, which as I've said before was blatant Clerical misconduct since it's not his job to play Supreme Court Justice. Regardless, he never sent me a letter stating that he disposed of the case on his own. After speaking to him on Thursday, he agreed to finally Docket the case. But he did so erroneously as I have previously documented. On Friday morning, he somewhat corrected the Docket, but he also made it reflect that Justice Souter had already decided the case. And then he sent me a letter as to Justice Souter's denial dated November 6th.

Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage.

This is truly unprecedented, my friends.

3. Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.

Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.

I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So Im asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.

I still find it amazing that regular citizens could get through to Bickell and that he persisted in his (alleged) hijinks anyway.

***

(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on Taitz - Justice Roberts interaction
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-21) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (video)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Leo Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)

Explanation: Danny Bickell

March 17, 2009

UPDATED: Decided it was better to separate the explanation from Leo Donofrio’s post about his interactions with Danny Boy Bickell.

Went back in the archives and found some of Leo Donofrio’s posts from his original site to give a little background of Danny Bickell’s behavior.

FYI, Donofrio’s challenge had nothing to do with the birth certificate per se. In fact, he conceded that he believed barry was probably born in Hawaii. He challenged on the basis of barry being a dual citizen with dual allegiance at birth through his father’s conferred British citizenship - Kenya being under colonial rule in 1961.

The Supreme Court didn’t by it - or so it seemed at the time. Now one wonders if they ever even saw or read any of the Danny boy embargoed cases.

Danny boy being Danny Bickell, the ‘Stay’ clerk at the US Supreme Court, who Orly Taitz outed to the world in front of Justice Roberts, implicating him with docket tampering in both Donofrio’s and Taitz’s cases. (I don’t recall him being a problem with Berg - but not certain.) But it’s not exactly new news. “Birther’s” are familiar with him, if only as that bot clerk at the Supreme Court. He’s not a mystery and he hasn’t been trying to hide his acts, which made him all the more aggravating - his audacity.

There are ways to attempt to hide ones illegal intents that he didn’t even try to implement - so sure he was he wouldn’t get caught. He allegedly (most definitely) talked to multiple people, including the principle lawyers in two different proceedings on recordable phones that he wasn’t going to do what the law compelled him to do - even in the face of threatened sanction recommendations. And then he went so far as to take Lightfoot v Bowen completely off the docket after barry was inagurated. Like he thought he was untouchable.

Might very well stil be. There’s always the clause that could save barry: for the sake of national security, and in this cases it would be fuily justified.

Justified. Nothing could ever make what he did justifiable.

It was a violation of the highest order, made worse by his “Constitutional law professor” (lecturer) and President of the Harvard Law Review experience. And then there’s his bogus claim of transparency. It’s taken over for the Iraq fairy tale, which he confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt, with his politically expedient (what else) decision on troop withdrawal from Iraq.

30-50K “non-combat troops” left behind?

What does it say to a non-corrupted prosecutor when someone does what Danny allegedly did before anything could be decide on?

That he knows the decision could possibly go the other way - else why bother? Why bother now? The Inauguration is over - it was from the beginning.

With Donofrio v Wells, Danny refused to file the Stay until after the election took place. It was supposedly accepted and denied by Justice Souter on Nov 6th. Donofrio asked Bickell be investigated. He wasn’t. Though I’m not sure how far Donofrio went.

With Taitz’s case, Lightfoot v Bowen, Danny removed it from the Supreme Court docket the day after barry was inaugurated. This is how sure he was no one would care - even if the “birthers” cried foul.

When you read the blue highlighted portion of Donofrio’s posts concerning Bickell, recall that this was back in November and that what Bickell did (did not do) prevented an emergency stay of the general election. No matter the outcome - no matter if the case had a snowball’s chance - a bot at the Supreme Court helped his leader get elected.

This is the Supreme Court of the United States, folks. The new Chicago style Washington.

The Change we can believe in!

***

(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on the meeting
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance.
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)

Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)

March 18, 2009

UPDATED: I decided to separate the two posts up into explanation and Leo Donofrio’s post.

(3-18) Explanation:Danny Bickell

***

November 13, 2008 post by Leo Donofrio [Emphasis added]

Donofrio v Wells
Docket # 08A407

Donofrio was suing the New Jersey Secretary of State for not making sure barry was constitutionally eligible based on dual citizenship/allegiance at birth from the British citizenship (Kenya under colonial rule) conferred on him by his father, before he was placed on the ballot.

***

US SUPREME COURT STAY CLERK DANNY BICKELL CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN LAW SUIT CHALLENGING 08 ELECTION

As of 9:53 AM, November 13, 2008, the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 has still not been updated to reflect the fact that the case…

Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey

… now before the US Supreme Court comes directly from a final decision as to the emergency matter issued by the highest court in New Jersey which is the Supreme Court Of New Jersey. Mr. Bickell has consistently attempted to stop this case from being docketed properly. And in doing so Mr. Bickell has subverted and defiled the esteemed Rules of the US Supreme Court, particularly Rules 22 and 23.

Mr. Bickell knows that, for my case to have proper standing before the US Supreme Court, I am required to exhaust all of my lower court options, which I have done. My case was originally brought in the NJ Appelllate Division where it was delayed, subjected to misconduct and eventually denied on October 30. Then on October 31, I brought the same action to the NJ Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also denied my application for Emergency relief, but in doing so, the NJ Supreme Court, by the hand of the Honorable Justice Virginia A Long, relied on “movant’s papers” which contained a Constitutional issue of first impression as to the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (See below.)

Bickell and the docket:

Regardless, after numerous attempts to reason with Mr. Bickell, he still refuses to update the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 to include any reference to the NJ Supreme Court decision. Instead, Mr. Bickell lists only the Appellate Division reference which is an incomplete record of the procedure of this case.

And in so doing, Mr. Bickell is very aware that any Justice of the Supreme Court who may take an interest in this case might come to an erroneous conclusion that the case is prematurely before the US Supreme Court. This is one of the many dangers inherent in Mr. Bickell’s sabotage of this case.

Sound familiar:

Mr. Bickell, through his illegal actions, has now taken control of the Docket at the United States Supreme Court and in so doing, Mr. Bickell is operating such Docket under his own brand of martial law. Mr. Bickell’s actions are no less than a declaration of war upon the Rules of Supreme Court practice.

I am calling for Mr. Bickell to be fired from his position and for him to be arrested by the Justice Department for criminal abuse of power and dereliction of duty. Mr. Bickell needs to be put under oath and questioned in a court of law as to the motivations behind his drastic attempt at overthrowing our legal system of justice and to see if there are other conspirators involved with him in this attack on our highest court’s authority.

If this lowly clerk can single-handedly deny justice according to his own whim and deceit, than the highest court in our land is effectively subverted to the cause of injustice. And such a house divided cannot stand. What you are seeing today, via Mr. Bickell’s blatant deceit and judicial treachery, is a direct attempt to change the fabric and ability of justice as we have always known it. This rebellion from the Supreme Court Rules of Court, if allowed to stand, will signal the beginning of the end of our Constitutional form of Government.

If, after having reviewed the documents and legal arguments at this site, you believe, as I do, that Mr. Bickell should be thrown out of his office at the US Supreme Court, then please call the US Supreme Court and speak your mind.

US Supreme Court Clerk’s office: 202-479-3011
Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell: 202-479-3024
Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1

Folks did - Danny lived on to mess with Lightfoot.

10:00 Donofrio comment:

This is an intellectual declaration of war by the Clerk’s office.

10:28 Comment:

Mr. Bickell is a traitor and I imagine he is not alone. Perhaps some may be feeling the truth of this situation, that the US Supreme Court has been invaded. They are making a gambit here that this will blow over and perhaps Mr. Bickell and his posse believe they will be shielded by pardons down the road. Regardless, my documents prove that they are willing to lie, cheat and deceive the public about this case.

11:16 Comment:

There’s an enemy of the people in the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and if this case does nothing else but expose that enemy of “We The People” then this case will have served a noble purpose.

11:43 UPDATE:

Mr. Danny Bickell, stay clerk of the US Supreme Court, has finally corrected the Docket for US Supreme Court Case No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, to reflect that this case has come to the US Supreme Court directly from a final order denying emergency relief by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Having this case properly docketed is a major procedural necessity to the case having proper standing to be decided in the US Supreme Court.

Even though it was docketed, he had to still deal with Danny.

1:31 UPDATE:

Now that the Docket reflects that my case has followed proper procedure through all possible lower court jurisdictions, I will resubmit the application for an emergency stay of the national election to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Supreme Court Rule 22(4) (operating in tandem with Rule 23) gives me the right, by law, to resubmit the Application for Emergency Stay to “any other Justice” once the original stay application has been denied. According to the Docket, and a letter I received from Mr. Danny Bickell, Justice Souter denied the stay application on November 6th.

One wonders if Justice Souter ever even saw it.

So, according to the Rules, I may now resubmit the application to “any other justice.”

However, there is still one issue which must be dealt with before I resubmit the stay application. Rule 22 (4) requires that I write a letter to the Clerk indicating which Justice I am renewing the stay application to. This letter is supposed to go to William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court, but the “stay clerk” is Mr. Danny Bickell and I’m certain that the renewed stay application will go directly through him.

Once the “Clerk” receives it, Rule 22(1) prescribes the following duty to the Clerk in relation thereto:

Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices

* 1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief. (Emphasis added.)

This means that the original stay application should have been submitted to Justice Souter on Mon. Nov 3rd, the day I filed it, the day it was stamped. But it wasn’t “transmitted promptly”, it was disposed of promptly by Mr. Bickell, and it was disposed of wrongly. Eventually it was actually transmitted to Justice Souter, but only after I read Mr. Bickell the riot act.

Ponder this; if Mr. Bickell had been intially correct in disposing of the stay application on Monday Nov. 3rd, then why did he eventually Docket it and submit it to Justice Souter on Nov. 6th? The answer is obvious. He was wrong to have disposed of it, and he was wrong to have failed to notify me of such disposition and he’s been wrongly trying to dispose of it in one way or another ever since.

Did Justice Souter actually sign the letter?

I anticipate that Mr. Bickell will be handed my renewed “application for an emergency stay” by interns in the Clerk’s office, even though, technically, according to Rule 22(1) the letter accompanying the application must be addressed to the “Clerk”. The Clerk is “William K Suter”.

Please send Mr. Suter letters indicating that you, as an American citizen, are outraged at the disrespect and sabotage this case, Donofrio v. Wells, US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407, has been subjected to. Mr. Suter’s address is:

William K. Suter, Clerk
United States Supreme Court
Office of the Clerk
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

Explains the legalese Bickell ignored:

When you write your letters to; Justice Thomas, the other Supreme Court Justices, and Clerk Suter, it would be good to include a paragraph explaining that the case reflects a matter of vital public importance, depends on a genuine Constitutional issue of first impression, is coming directly from the NJ Supreme Court and is relying on the “stay application” precedent issued by the most Honorable Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):

“Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bickell failed to recognize the precedent set in that case when he initially refused to pass on my “stay application” to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd. When I spoke to Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6th, he told me my stay application should have come with a “Full Petition for Writ of Certiorari”. It was this decision which delayed Justice. This was a decision of substantive law made by a clerk who subverted the authority of the US Supreme Court. And his decision, despite being an act of direct insubordination, was also legally flawed.

Are these clerks lawyers? If so, are they allowed to have independent thought?

As was done in Bush v. Gore, also a Presidential election case involving an emergency, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recognizing the exigency of the circumstances, decided to relax its formal requirements and instead, the Honorable Court, in granting the Stay, decided to accept the less formal Stay Application as if it were a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and then they granted Certiorari.

This was the precedent I was proceeding under. Had Mr. Bickell followed the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Souter would have received my emergency Stay Application on Monday Nov. 3rd, shortly after 4:30PM. But Mr. Bickell didn’t Docket the case until Nov. 6th, and only after I protested vehemently.

I wonder if the following words were caught on tape:

While arguing with me, Mr. Bickell told me that it didn’t matter what I did or what law I cited, “Justice Souter will just deny it…and Justice Thomas will also deny it.”

According to the Docket and Mr. Bickell’s letter, Justice Souter apparently denied the Stay Application on that same day.

Had Justice Souter denied it on Nov. 3rd instead, and had Mr. Bickell then followed Rule 22(6), which says that I was to be informed of the “disposition” of the case “by appropriately speedy means”, i.e., a phone call, then I could have resubmitted the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas at 9:00 AM on Nov. 4th, Election Day, and since the case was bi-partisan, and at that time there was no winner, Justice Clarence Thomas could have granted the stay, stopped the Election, brought in the whole Court, and decided the “natural born citizen” issue before the voting was done.

I did everything in my power to see that this was the case, and Mr. Bickell did everything in his power to see that this wasn’t the case.

And that’s why your letters are still needed. Mr. Bickell needs to understand that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court will be aware that this case is on its way to them and that if anybody is going to deny the stay application - “We the People” - demand that it be a genuine US Supreme Court Justice and not a clerk impersonating a Justice.

So if the allegations are true - Danny boy highjacked the Stay so the election would be official. He does his job, he knows the “first black president” is not going to be deposed after 67M folks voted for him. And barry’s lawyers knew no judge would challenge him and that once Justice Roberts swore barry in it would be over.

The only unknown was the reaction of the non-obamerized American People. And that’s were the pro-barry press came in — to downplay the challenges to his eligibility and to ridicule and attack the “birthers”.

And it seems they got so complacent with the “blond bimbo Russian immigrant dentist woman with the online law degree” that she was able to directly question the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with cameras, keyboards and audio blazing.

Yo, Danny, how goes it?

***

I’ll have to go find Donofrio’s recent thoughts.

(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on the meeting
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance.
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)

Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts

March 17, 2009

Danny Bickell the “stay” clerk at the US Supreme Court has been implicated in tampering with both Donofrio’s and Taitz’s cases.

Leo Donofrio’s challenge had nothing to do with the birth certificate per se. He conceded that barry was probably born in Hawaii. He challenged on the basis of barry being a dual citizen at birth through his father’s British citizenship - Kenya being under colonial rule in 1961.

Donofrio worked with Cort Wrotnoswki on a parallel case ivolving the Connecticut Seretary of State.

With Donofrio v Wells, Danny refused to file the Stay until after the election was over. It was denied by Justice Souter on Nov 6th. Donofrio asked Bickell be investigated. He wasn’t.

With Taitz’s case, Lightfoot v Bowen, Danny removed it from the Supreme Court docket the day after barry was inaugurated. That’s how sure he was no one would care - even if the “birthers” cried foul.

When you read Donofrio’s posts concerning Bickell, recall that this was back in November and that what Bickell did (did not do) could potentially have prevented an emergency stay of the general election. He, as a private citizen, intervened and helped get his leader elected.

What kind odf pay to play was involved there? Or was it just garden variety barry manlove?

Think about it folks - the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chicago style Washington is the Change! we can believe in.

Nothing happened when Donofrio asked Bickell be sanctioned in November 08. And two months later, Bickell took Lightfoot v Bowen clear off the docket until he was forced to put it back up by enraged, nonobamerized citizens.

I’d make a healthy wager Chief Justice Roberts had no idea what Taitz was talking about. Justice Scalia clearly didn’t. I still have to post that.

Now what?

Probably nothing.

How is the “first black president” ever going to be thrown out of office?

Never going to happen. That was established even before barry even got to South Carolina. The whole race baiting was set up before Mr Bill was provoked. barry had prepared a “The Clintons are Racists” memo to get black voters behind him and it worked. What barry stood for a week previous suddenly became meaningful for one reason and one reason alone: race baiting. And Rep Clyburn has kept at it, threatening racial violence whenever and whereever it suits his needs - the latest in response to the mention of Zimbabwe.

And it is an international security issue as well. The Arab world would find it a convenient excuse to launch even more hate at western infidels. Think about all the Intelligence barry has had access to. The only person who has actually been doing something since barry took over is Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton.

But Orly Taitz outed Danny Bickell for all to see - most importantly Justice Roberts. More dots have been connected and another barry operative has been exposed.

The onus of barry’s in/eligibility is on Justice Roberts - exactly where it should be. H will have to address this publicly on the record. And he will also be forced to defend his secret meeting with barry and biden on Jan 14th - the reason for Taitz’s supplemental brief.

Danny Bickell’s acts will provide proof SCOTUS was completely compromised: before barry was elected (Donofrio’s Stay delayed), during the transition (Justices met with barry and biden - request for recusal not filed) and after he was inaugurated (Lightfoot removed from docket). Danny’s hand in all of it.

What happens is up to Justice Roberts and his fellow justices.

Will Justice Alito have to something to say this time?

And just exactly who and what was Justice Ginsburg talking about when she mentioned there would be an opening on the Court soon?

We haven't had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon.

She wasn't speaking for herself.

What say you, Chief Justice?

***

(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter's take on the meeting
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance.
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts

Orly Taitz questions Justice Roberts (audio/text)

March 16, 2009

Here's the audio of Orly Taitz asking Chief Justice Roberts about her case. He respectfully cuts her off after the audience grumbles. They reacted but it's hard to tell if it consisted of - laughing, gasping or amen!

Take special note of what the moderator says about what cannot be discussed.

Questions not speeches.

Connection to the university community.

Due to the duties of his office, the Chief Justice would not be able to answer any questions seeking legal opinions or posing issues that are pending, or likely to become pending, before the US Supreme Court.

ORLY TAITZ:

Hi, Justice Roberts. I am an attorney. My name is Orly Taitz. And I actually flew from Southern California thousands of miles - I got up at three o’clock in the morning to be here to ask you a question - so please give me a little bit of leeway. And, uh, this question is:

I wanted to know if you are aware of some illegal activity that is going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?

I brought a case to you personally, and you personally had decided to distribute it to conference on January 23.

Your clerk, Danny Bickell, on his own, decided to hide the supplemental brief from you and not docket it. Later on, the case was erased from the docket. Hundreds of citizens were calling and demanding to put it back.

I talked to Justice-Justice Scalia on Monday, and he stated he never heard of the case, even though supposedly it was discussed in conference on January 23rd.

I have hear pages, of citizens-half a million citizens have signed petition to you personally, and each and every justice, demanding that you hear my case: Lightfoot v Bowen that stated that Barack [I would have liked to have seen his face right at this moment] Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro is totally illegitimate for presidency due to the fact [audience reacts] that he is ah, ah foreign national at birth, ah-ah--

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS:

Thank you-thank you very much Ma'am, and I appreciate you traveling so far. If-if you have particular documents that you want, uh, to-to leave with us, I'll be happy to look at them if you leave them behind.

Beyond that, I obviously can't talk about any cases, or applications or petitions that are pending.

Thank you. Thank you.

MODERATOR:

A member of security will be happy to see you with regard to the documents.

She got cut off - politely - but was the microphone taken away? You can't hear her saying thank you or anything else. There was some murmuring around the folks who taped this that would be interesting to decipher.

Best line was about Scalia and how he had never heard of the case, even though supposedly it was discussed in conference on January 23rd. So did they talk about it or not? How much control does little Danny have? And what relative got him the job?

Anyone have a little free time and some sleuthing skills - check out Danny boy's connections: to the justices, politicians, families and of course barry. Though now that I think about it - I think he was the same guy who messed with Leo Donofrio. I don't know if he had anything to do with the anthrax. I'll have to look in the archives/drafts. And if it is the same guy, kinda says it all.

Did they know about the cases before them when they met with barry and Biden?

What I really want to know is who Roberts called first: barry, Scalia, Homeland Security, President of the University, local police, Danny Bickell or the Secret Service for allowing her anywhere near him - her blonde hair is pretty recognizable and then there's the accent and flight manifest.

***

(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter's take on the meeting
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance.
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts