Orly Taitz letter to Chief Justice Roberts (3-26)

March 28, 2009

Orly Taitz's follow up letter to Chief Justice Roberts after ambushing him at University of Idaho on March 13th. [See links after her letter.] I wish someone would proofread it for her. He should at least receive a greeting and a thank you for accepting her question and her papers when he was under no obligation to do so. And the facts should be presented neutrally and for sure no ultimatum should be given before he has a chance to respond. He is the highest Justice in the land and should be afforded the respect his position demands - no matter the frustration.

How is this helping?

Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly heard in conference five times.

Now is not the time to blow it. A simple status cover letter and then a listing of the facts on a separate sheet would have been better. I know the facts, and this was overwhelming, disjointed and in your face. A lawyer, if nothing else, has to build his/her case logically, and in order to believe the case, Justice Roberts first has to believe the person presenting it.

His first impression reading this is not going to entice him to read more. There have to be citizens willing to proofread the letter and respond immediately with an edited version. Please use them.

Anyone over at Defend our Freedoms Foundation - now is the time to be professional and patient. Yes, it has been frustrating, and it's hard to believe people still think this is a joke or vendetta or a bunch of crazy sore losers - but you have his attention. Give him some time to review everything. Eric Holder just got sworn in. The truth is coming - please give it time and please be courteous. Justice Roberts was caught on tape saying he would review it - he can't back down. And in case anyone needs reminding, men in positions of power are not too fond of women getting in their faces.

Letter is as written - spacing added.

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Counsel for the Petitioners in Lightfoot v Bowen
Counsel for the Petitioners in Easterling et al v Obama et al

Chief Justice John J. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States

This is to remind you that on 03.13.09. I have presented you with the motion for reconsideration in Lightfoot v Bowen, Quo Warranto in Easterling et al v Obama et al and a 164 page dossier of suspected illegal and criminal activity surrounding Mr. Obama and his supporters, that was written on 03.01.09 and sent on Attorney general Holder on 03.03.09. In front of 1200 students and faculty of the University of Moscow, Idaho you agreed to review those documents. This is a matter of National Security and National urgency and as of yet there was no response from you or Attorney General Holder, nor Robert Mueller, Director of FBI, that was copied on this dossier.

On 03.25.09. I arrived to the Washington DC and personally had delivered copies of the above documents to both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice.
I have received a letter from your clerk William K Suter, that relates to the pleadings received on the 23rd and does not mention any documents submitted on the 13th, and I am not sure you are aware of this letter, as you didn't seem to be aware of other matters in the Supreme Court. Mr. Suter stated, that Quo Warranto and Writ of Mandamus don't comply with the rules and I can file a petition for exraordinary writ of MANDAMUS, and I have to file it with the court. He didn't specify what rules he is talking about and this statement seems to be incorrect, since I have filed Quo Warranto as an original jurisdiction case, which doesn't need to be in the form of extraordinary writ of Mandamus. Mr. Suter also stated that the Rules of this Court make no provision for the Motion for Reconsideration of an application, however the rules of this court make no provision for many other out of the ordinary acts, that happened on your watch, including and not limited to:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court meeting behind close doors with Obama, who is a person of interest and subject of litigation of my petition, that was scheduled to be heard only a few days later.

2. Any mention of my case, stating that Mr. Obama is ineligible for US presidency, being erased from the External docket of the Supreme Court right after the inauguration and two days before the case was supposed to be heard.

3. Your clerks lying to the citizens and defaming me by claiming that the above events didn't happen, even though hundreds of citizens saw it and are prepared to testify in court in regards to such events.

4. Clerk Danny Bickel on his own accord refusing to file one of two supplemental briefs I've submitted.

5. Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly heard in conference five times.

6. Supreme Court Justice getting all of this information and doing nothing about, while under an obligation to act and correct the wrong.

7. Supreme Court Justices getting information in regarding to criminal activity and not reporting it for further investigation by law enforcement.

8. Supreme Court Justices deciding not to hear on the merits any and all cases in regards to president's ineligibility, while finding more value in a case deling with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco. It appears the right of a few trial lawyers to make millions of dollars of such litigation was more important then the right of 305 million Americans to have a legitimate president.

9. Yesterday, on 03.25.09. I was able to meet with the National Selective Service Director, Mr. Chatfield, who could not explain any inconsistencies and suspected signs of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate presented to the public by Mr. Obama. For example, according to the retired federal agent Coffman, the serial number of the certificate on the top shows first two numbers to be 08, meaning it was created in 2008, while on the bottom an extra 8 was added, to make it look like it was created in 1980. Similarly, National Director was clueless and provided no explanation to the wrong seal, wrong dates and wrong form number.

9. Recently I have read the book "Making your Case", that Justice Scalia autographed for me. On page 77 it states " Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that the 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 selection of particular briefs) by law clerks'. When you have unscrupulous clerks and the issue is National Security this is inconceivable.

One of old maxims in legal practice, is that the substance trumps form. The substance dictates, that under such conditions, it is your obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and to issue a stay to Mr. Obama's functioning in the capacity of the president and commander in Chief and give him a reasonable time of 24 hours or 48 hours to present all of his vital records or sign a consent for release of such records. If he is not willing to do so, then per the 20th amendment, Mr. Biden becomes a temporary president for two or three months, until a new president and be chosen in a special election.

Justice Roberts, if you are unwilling to do so, it is your constitutional and moral duty to resign and let another Justice uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted. and is being hand delivered on my way to the airport, flying back to California,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners.
***

(3-28) Updated list or Orly Taitz posts
(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 boy Bickell (Nov 13th)
(3-24) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)
(3-3) Taitz: Pre-Litigation Quo Warranto Letter to Atty Gen Holder
(3-6) Orly Taitz’s military & office holding plaintiffs
(3-25) Orly Taitz: Documents present and accounted for at DOJ & SCOTUS

Quo Warranto and Application for Emergency Stay refiled in person

March 25, 2009

[See below document for links for more Danny and Taitz ambushing Chief Justice Roberts in Idaho.]

Not sure if you can see this. I didn't want to download anything from Orly Taitz's site and the pdf HTML didn't work. This is a copy of Application for Emergency Stay and the Quo Warranto that was refiled in person by Orly Taitz and Joseph Farah (WND) on their trip to Washington.

It has been learned, proven, and now documented that many of the signed receipt documents send in since December have not been received.

They must have the person's signature? The date stamp: March 23rd 2009. Looks like they stayed in the Radisson or faxed from there. If anyone out there posts on her site - Alan Keyes' name is misspelled if that is a technical problem.

And why was there only a partial list of plaintiffs? Have the rest changed their minds? Rep Rappaport (R-NH) left us a note last week that he had signed on and his name isn't listed.

I'm not sure what the deal is with the stay when he was inaugurated 64 or so days ago and the Electoral College met December 15th. Maybe just to have it officially looked and have Danny be investigated and if he did something improper it would warrant a reevaluation of the cases he touched.

If you can't read the document:

Lightfoot v Bowen No. 08A-524

Application for emergency stay and/or injunction as to the 2008 Electoral College meeting and alternatively as to California Electors.

Motion to Reconsider

The Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:

Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickell, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket and forward to the Chief Justice and Associated Justices Petitioners' Supplemental Brief [-ented] on January 15, 2009

(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 boy Bickell (Nov 13th)
(3-24) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)

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)

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)
(3-21) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (video)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Donofrio vs Danny Bickell (Nov 13th)

What happens when a case is conferenced by SCOTUS

January 2, 2009

I knew nothing about The Constitution of the Supreme Court or what primaries were all about before all this started. Here’s what happens when a cases is “Conferenced”.

Note that no one is allowed in, no comments have to be made as to why something is denied and a vote is revealed only when a decision is made.

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Historical Society:

Of the cases remaining, the Justices screen the problems closely—by a process they explain freely in outline. They meet on Wednesdays and Fridays during the term in a conference room as secret as any in government. In a capital full of classified matters, and full of leaks, the Court keeps private matters private. Reporters may speculate; but details of discussion are never disclosed, and the vote is revealed only when a decision is announced. No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as “doorkeeper,” sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door. “We could not function as a court if our conferences were public,” Justice Blackmun once explained, “There are just the nine of us, no more…[W]e can say what we initially believe, only to be proved wrong by the honing effect of conference and agreement and disagreement.”

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority. Before each Justice is a copy of the day’s agenda. Each decides when he or she should refrain from taking any part in a case.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Paradoxically, perhaps—in light of the complete confidentiality of the conference—the Supreme Court is one of the most open of government agencies and one of the most public of courts. It acts only on matters of public record; it hears counsel’s arguments in public; all its orders and opinions are on the record; all materials presented to the Court for reaching its decisions are available to the public.

All conference decisions are published. The disagreements among the Justices are fully exposed to the public in the written opinions, and on occasion the language of dissent becomes vehement.

When the vote has been taken on a case, the writing of an opinion is assigned—by the Chief if he voted with the majority, otherwise by the senior Justice of the majority. Dissenters may agree among themselves on who will explain their view. Any Justice, concurring or dissenting, may write an individual opinion to emphasize a special point.

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

Orly Taitz's shout out to Mr Richard Holley for his assistance

March 15, 2009

Well Orly Taitz made her way to Moscow (does anyone find this cosmic?), Idaho to deliver her documents in person to Chief Justice Roberts. Assisting her efforts in Moscow was a Mr RICHARD HOLLEY.

TAITZ: I especially wanted to thank Mr. Richard Holley, our Patriot in Moscow Idaho, who printed out thousands of pages of the World Net Daily report. He printed my pleadings of Easterling et al v Obama, he also stood in line for hours at the auditorium, as I was flying and driving, so I will have a good seat and would be able to address Justice Roberts.

I have to mention that it was hard for Mr. Holley, as he has a disability and walks with a cane, yet he did it.

Thank you Mr, Holley from the bottom of my heart.

And thank you from all us here.

***

(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

AP reporter's take on Taitz's exchange with Justice Roberts

March 15, 2009

Chief Justice John Roberts was in Idaho Friday (13th) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the University of Idaho School of Law and he gave a speech about Abraham Lincoln. Afterward, Orly Taitz hand delivered her documents to Chief Justice John Roberts - through the hands of the Secret Service of course. Here is her version of events and below is an AP reporter's view. Take note of his tone.

Haven't found a You Tube or news video.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS:

Chief Justice John Roberts discussed the legal prowess of President Lincoln during a university lecture Friday and fended off an audience member who advanced the widely discredited theory that Barack Obama was not legally qualified to be president.

Widely discredited? By whom?

At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had documents proving that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus could not be president. While audience members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.

"A woman"? Guess he doesn't know she is a lawyer and a dentist - just some lady.

Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with her, she should give them to security officers. He also said he could not discuss the issue.

And then he throws this in as if it means something. He doesn't name the case or the judge.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., threw out a lawsuit questioning Obama's citizenship, branding the case a waste of the court's time.

I sure would love to see the video. Taitz said students and teachers came up to her afterward to ask why they could do.

***

(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 hand delivers documents to Justice Roberts

March 15, 2009

Orly Taitz personally traveled to University of Idaho where Chief Justice Roberts was speaking. She decided that since Justice Scalia wasn't familiar with her case, Roberts might not either. Giving him the papers in person would bypass Danny Bickell, Roberts' clerk, who was the one responsible for taking down her case from the Supreme Court docket. We noticed it as did thousands of other people. They don't even try to hide what they're doing. I have a post somewhere on what the clerks did to Donofrio and Wrotnowski. Donofrio's clerk intentionally misfiled and Wrotnowski's papers got sent for Anthrax quarantine.

John Grisham couldn’t write this stuff.

She had a suitcase full of documents for Roberts. Her said he would read them. And the exchange was recorded on video, on audio, in print and probably on you tube. And then there were the hundreds of live witnesses.

From defendourfreedoms.us [spacing and punctuation added]:

My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California.

I left home at three o'clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question:

Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?

I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you - you agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23.

Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord, refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief. He has [sic] hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket.

Additionally, my case was erased from the docket - completely erased - one day after the inauguration - only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference.

Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted.

On Monday, I saw Justice Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd.

It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.

Bam. Say what you will about the origin of her law degree - she made a damn good argument in 165 words.

A crime is being committed in the highest court in the land, in front of the highest justice in the land, involving the highest office in the land.

This is what happened, this is what should have happened, here is the clerk's name and here are the documents - please read them.

After all this time, it has finally gotten to the point to where it can no longer be ignored. The media maybe - but not by the Supreme Court.

The documents:

• Motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
• Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
  
• 3300 pages of the names on the WorldNetDaily petition.
• A copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder describing the suspected criminal activity associated with Obama and his supporters.
• A descritption of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of her.
• Screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court.
• Information of court cases being fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion.
• A list of a 100 addresses for barry with different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.
• Address barry used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old.
• Indonesian school registration: Barry Soetoro, Citizen: Indonesia, Religion: Muslim.
• Evidence of barry lying under oath. [Don’t know what this is specifically]
• His registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names.
• [I don’t think this is a problem. The form is about any other names after he joined the bar, such as name changes and marriages. As far as I understand it, he was not swearing that he had no other aliases before he became a lawyer.]
• NOTE: Barry’s law license is not active and Michelle’s is on a mandatory inactive status.
• Report from Federal Agent Steven Coffman re: evidence of forgery on barry’s Selective Service Certificate.
• Letter from Sandra Line re: evidence of forgery on barry’s COLB.
• Her pleadings
• The WorldNetDaily petition with approximately 350,000 signatures plus some individual letters.
• 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama obtained from Intellius Jobs.com.
• None of which were reported on Obamas' tax returns.

I wouldn't suggest you google it. I just went to look and as soon as I typed it in google I was disconnected from the internet.

Justice Roberts:

I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent, and I will review them.

Secret Service Gilbert Shaw went and found a box and took them from her:

Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them.

Mission Accomplished.

Congratulations Dr Taitz.

***

(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

body language: barry, biden and the Supreme Court Justices

=

February 6, 2009

I see I never posted this. It says a great, great deal. Now that I think of it I forgot to post the presidents in the Oval Office. That was extremely revealing.

On 1-14, barry and biden met behind closed doors with the Supremes. Missing was Justice Alito, which was no coincidence. Their meeting is discussed here. I just want to talk about the body language, which is remarkable.

.

(Photo) barry, Justices John Roberts, John Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Joe Biden

First off, the Justices do not seem grouped by political views. What is important is that there are five - what was needed to make the decision. barry and biden are holding on to the chairs like they have taken over - barry asserting his dominance by leaning over the chair with his two forearms. He is affable, but is embracing himself - separating himself from the group in a dominant way - he doesn't need any of them. I don't know whose chair that is but I would not be surprised if it was the Chief Justice's.

Biden is an excellent subject to watch. There is never any doubt what he is thinking or feeling - even before he says it. He must have spent a lot of time cleaning blackboards as a kid. It's what makes barry the most angry because he can't mask Biden like he tries to mask himself. Watch barry's reaction when Biden makes the joke about Justice Roberts' memory. You'll see a great deal of unmasking in barry's face: anger, embarrassment, bewilderment and ruined birthday party. Whatever happened in this room barry owes Justice Roberts and that is why he was so angry - because Biden should have known better.

Biden has claimed his spot - to the left and across the table from barry, facing him at an angle. His hands are placed modestly on the chair but they are at the peak of the chair. He knows his place and has a firm grasp on it and is not about to let it go. His dominant hand is covered by his non dominant one. It is a subtle sign that he is trying to cover something up but he knows that's what he needs to do to keep his position. The two of them are laughing and smiling at each other like we've got them now - we're set. There is a distinct look of conspiracy - one they have had for a while - one they knew they were going to win. They have the judges flanked - literally boxed into the corner. Biden has his back to the dissenters - to his right and behind him. He doesn't need them anymore. He has the Chief and the Senior Member in his and barry's circle. It's enough.

This is all quite fascinating really.

Now look at Chief Justice Roberts. He is to barry's immediate left, very close, and just slightly behind him. Barry is leaning forward to make sure of his dominance, while appearing to be relaxed. Roberts is standing erect, asserting his dominance in his environment. His hands in front of him and away from his body, showing that if challenged, he would be able to stand his ground. He usually commands the room, but today he had been inched over and is a close second. He also is smiling, fully engaged and complicit on an equal basis. He has made his decision but is still unsure. (May explain the oath - that was not in any way simple mistake.)

Next comes Justice Stevens. I don't know anything about seniority but I would guess he is the most senior. He is comfortable in the space that he has been respectfully afforded. He is the most relaxed, amused in a bystander type of way, having seen it all. He is leaning barry's way and has not completely closed himself off from the others - though he is in front of them. No one is a threat to him - nor does anyone find him threatening. He is the most intelligent person in the room, is curious, well-mannered and a very good listener. He's drawn himself in toward Biden. No matter his views - my guess is he allows the most latitude. I would pick him to present my case to and I would make sure I was impeccably dressed and respectful but not deferential. His (great) grandchildren probably adore him.

I don't know how the mechanics work, but I would guess he is the most hands on in actually writing his decisions. Here he has his left hand in his pants pocket but the jacket is still modestly buttoned. A sort of subtle collegial upper hand. Hands in the pockets is a distinct behavior of men of that generation. The elder Bush did the same but he had both hands in his pockets - very different.

Justice Thomas has made the loudest statement. He wants none of it. He is furthest away, and although boxed in, he is the focal point of the picture. The decision rested on him. Biden finds him threatening - he has his back turned directly at Thomas, who is directly in line with barry and looking right at him, waiting to take him on. This particular argument is not over. I bet Thomas holds a mean grudge. barry is protecting himself from Thomas with his right hand higher up on his arm. I wish I could see Thomas' face better - but more importantly his hands. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fisted. He is pretending to smile but is not looking at the one telling the joke. My guess that he never took his eyes off barry and barry didn't look at him.

Justice Ginsberg is extremely physically weakened - her abdomen looks swollen and it looks she is trying hard to stay upright. She is holding her own as far as her position in the group - she is in the center by choice - but has pulled into herself in pain. She doesn't even appear to be part of the proceedings - she is there because she is fulfilling a duty and knows her importance as a woman. Her face is a grimace and she is holding herself very rigid, tightly gripping her hands. When I first saw her, I saw pain, sorrow and impatience. I now know she has pancreatic cancer, which is very painful, and explains everything.

Justice Souter I know nothing about - well I don't know any of them - but he doesn't send off much of anything. Did someone put in a word for him or was he an alternative to someone? I see him as someone who can float but once he decides he is firm in his position. He was probably a loner as a kid and I would hazard a guess he doesn't have strong people skills or a wide range of emotion - like a Quaker or Puritan type. I wonder if he has ever been married.

He has taken a spot and is rooted in it - his arms crossed in front of him - left hand not completely tucked in. I sense this is a normal way of standing for him - more self-protection than defensive. He's looking down when a joke is being told - laughing despite himself and at odds with his posture. I sense he likes Biden and could easily be persuaded by him. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a damp ineffectual handshake to a woman.

Most interesting is the fact that the other Justices are not in the picture. There is no way to conjecture why. What is clear is they chose not to be in the picture. It would have been interesting to see them in the flesh because I've only ever seen their names on dockets.

After this meeting, barry's mood lightened - I noticed it before I was aware of the meeting. At the time, there were two cases before the Court (Lightfoot v Bowen and Berg v Obama/Biden), so the meeting was completely inappropriate and not at all required. Bush had not done it and Clinton and Gore reportedly made a production out of it, which I can't imagine barry wouldn't want to top.

There's one thing that I have been wondering for months. Mr Bill said in his anger and frustration that after the Inauguration he would sit down and tell what was really going on. I have to wonder if that was why Hillary was picked for Secretary of State - we know courtesy of Dr Biden that she was ever considered for either initially.

VP Biden apologizes - did barry?

January 28, 2008

This is how crazy political coverage has gotten. Joe Biden is Joe Biden. He is not going to change. You want transparency - he's it. The choices are leashing or banishing. barry's attempt to muzzle him last week was unsuccessful and the little dig at Chief Justice Roberts' about barry's botched oath (#2) popped right out. You could see it coming. He did apologize to Justice Roberts - but now he is being banished to Germany (a real international trip) with chaperone and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Gen James Jones, to attend the annual security policy conference in Munich. barry's probably still ticked with Dr Jill Biden's remarks on Oprah. But he had no problem "kissing" her at the Convention. Did barry apologize about...that?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7E50HNurkM]

2tellthenews

Ranks up there with Al & Tipper and Lisa Marie & Micheal Jackson.

Dr Biden gaffe: VP or Secretary of State?

January 22, 2009

VP and Dr Biden were on Oprah (1-19-09). They were having a nice little chat until Dr Biden leaked a secret that I'm sure barry wanted never to get out. It must be a family thing. She said her husband had the choice between Secretary of State and Vice President. Enlightening. We know that Sen Clinton was never in the running for VP. So it appears she was never on barry's short list for either.

Who was the other choice? Richardson? Kerry? And what kind of leader gives the decision to the person he will be appointing? That's what's most bizarre. Recall that it was the most important barry made as it was his first decision and he turfed it in his usual fashion. It's quite funny in a way and then add in VP Biden's not very well taken joke yesterday about Chief Justice Roberts' memory concerning the Oath of Office. (Take #2). I find him very refreshing. He says what's on his mind and calls it like he sees it and it seems his wife too.

Barry wants transparency? There's no one more transparent than Biden...or his wife it seems.

lukalicious13

Biden was discussing his VP job with Oprah. How he said he needed some time to take to "Jillie" to see what was best for the family. He then went on to joke that "besides, we have public housing now".

Oprah then asked Dr Biden why she thought it would be good for the family.

JILL (6:00): Because I think--Joe had the choice to be secretary of state or vice president.

Came right out. She was looking at Oprah and saw hubby react and she stopped.

JOE: Shhhh!

JILL looked at the audience - who was loving it - and said no big dealwise: Well. Ok. He did.

OPRAH: It's ok. It's ok.

JOE, red-faced with his lupine grin laughed and hugged her and said: That's alright. Go ahead.

OPRAH: Why did you say it was good for the family?

JILL: So I said, 'Joe, if you're secretary of state, you'll be away...we'll never see you...you know. I'll see you at a state dinner once in awhile. But I said, if you're vice president, the entire family - because they worked so hard for the election -can be involved. They can come to our home. They can go to events, they can be with us all the time.' And that's what's important to us.

Joe sat there with his frozen smile probably happy it wasn't him. Oprah ever the professional and friend of barry went right past it. Problem is she asked if he was "worried about being number two since he wanted to be number one."

JOE: I think Barack was worried about it!

He couldn't help himself either. Their conversations at home must be interesting. Dr Biden is a beautiful woman. Hard to believe she is 57. Must be all that running. They look like they have a lot of fun together.

Then came the expected Joe Biden spokesperson statement. From WSJ's SUSAN DAVIS:

Elizabeth Alexander: Like anyone who followed the presidential campaign this summer, Dr. Jill Biden knew there was a chance that President-elect Obama might ask her husband to serve in some capacity and that, given his background, the positions of Vice President and Secretary of State were possibilities.

Dr. Biden's point to Oprah today was that being Vice President would be a better fit for their family because they would get to see him more and get to participate in serving more. To be clear, President-elect Obama offered Vice President-elect Biden one job only — to be his running mate. And the Vice President-elect was thrilled to accept the offer.

An interesting and conflicting note:

However ABC News notes that today was not the first time a Biden suggested the state job had been offered. In an Oct. 20 New Yorker article, Biden is quoted discussing his options with Obama, who noted his interest in foreign policy.

"[Obama] wasn't offering me this, but he said, 'Would you rather be Secretary of State instead of Vice-President?' And I thought a lot about that," Biden told the magazine. He said he consulted with his own advisers who said he'd be better as a running mate. "They convinced me that I could have more influence on policy as a Vice-President with Barack," Biden said.

joe bidengaffer is back!

January 22, 2009

Day one and VP Biden is back at it much to barry's chagrin. Better him than his wife I guess. barry and Biden were swearing in the new senior staff and Biden couldn't restrain himself from making a comment about Chief Justice Roberts' Oath of Office problems. (Take #2) The problem being Mr President, who was not at all pleased. Though he did give The American People a real view of him. He was too tired to keep the mask on.

TPMTV

Keep an eye on barry. He grabs Biden like he's a naughty child. He is. His grandkids must get away with everything - they have an accessory. Biden knows he's coming and turns his back on him. barry shows a whole range of emotion: anger, frustration, sadness and at the end he looks like a kid whose birthday party was ruined. This is the first time barry has elicited a real emotion - that lost and lonely kid. I can see what drives his need for adulation. His ego is what drives his need for adoration and that's the problem. I wonder what his wife thought when she saw this footage - if she recognized that person. Most curious would be his children's visceral reactions.

BARRY: Joe, do you want to administer the oath?

BIDEN: Am I doing this again?

BARRY: For the senior staff.

BIDEN: Oh, the senior staff. Alright.

BARRY:...a number of cabinet members have already...

BIDEN: My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts...

barry and biden meet privately with SCOTUS

January 14, 2009

[I know I'm a little tardy in posting things but my fellow citizens have abandoned me...for good it seems.]

barry and biden had a cozy chat with the Supreme Court judges on Jan 14th. Judge Alito was absent - reason not given. Conflict of interest would be a good place to start.

aHear about it on the news? Read it in the paper? See the photo op?

Me neither. I found out about it from TONY MAURO at the Blog of Legal Times. It was described it as "courtesy call" as part of a pre-inaugural tradition - the last time being 1992 - and lasted about an hour. Evidently the invitation was sent out Dec 5th - one wonders why their visit was so delayed? Kinda hard to see the defendant(s) in chambers, I guess. And the presidential battery went out of their way to avoid being seen by anyone. Had they wanted the press they would no doubt have made what Roger Simon calls "stagecraft". A presidency of stagecraft he said. Can't put it much better than that. Stagecraft and documentary-worthy presidential re-creations.

Ever know barry to pass up a photo op? A constitutional lawyer not getting his picture with the Supreme Court Justices for all to see? The first black president of the Harvard Law Review not making a production out of it?

It was a "matter of security". And, curiouser and curiouser, they were not alone. Present were Jeff Minear, counselor to Chief Justice Roberts, Gregory Craig, barry's soon to be White House counsel and Alan Hoffman, Biden's deputy chief of staff.

Why the need for lawyers? A sightseeing tour? Autographs maybe?

I honestly don't know how in a legal sense the Justices could talk with them in camera so to speak when cases against them were still being considered (however truthfully) in front of them. Does someone keep a record of their chat or perhaps proceedings? Berg's conference was on the 16th and Lightfoot on the 23rd. How is that not a conflict of interest? It may very well explain Justice Alito's absence. One thing I did notice - barry's mood lightened last week. Must help knowing the Chief Justice isn't going to rule against you.

If the Justices asked them formal questions - is the public able to know? This whole thing stinks. Obamahoax is a step closer to a More Perfect Union...Chicago style.

Lightfoot v Bowen is back

January 22, 2009

Don't know the exact difficulty but Lightfoot v Bowen is back up on the Supreme Court docket. It is still alive (on paper) and is still scheduled for conference tomorrow.

How can the Court even look at something they have already intervened on? What is Roberts going to say? Uh-oh x 2? Their secret little meeting with barry and biden and their respective counsel says it all.

Oath of Office...take two...not on video

January 22, 2009

barry was sworn in...again...last night. Amazing the attention to The Constitution after he becomes president. If he is so concerned about upholding The Constitution, why doesn't he relieve The American People's minds by proving his constitutional eligibility to be sworn in at all? Not in attendance was the Lincoln Bible - or any Bible for that matter. So is it a true oath?

One thing is for sure - Justice Roberts had time to think over his decision so he can never say he didn't have a second chance. I would like to talk to Justice Alito. His not being at barry and Biden's fireside chat was intentional.

So was Biden the President? Did barry re-sign whatever he had done? If he really wasn't able to execute the office of the president until the repeat oath, then nothing he did up until that time was "legal". Can't have it both ways. Although that is barry's MO.

And why no video? A separate picture and audio? Didn't he want that footage shown?

The whole thing reeks.

What would Freud have thought about Roberts' and barry's mis-swearing in?

(PETE SOUZA White House)

White House Counsel Greg Craig (who was also at the fireside chat):

We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself.

Absolute insanity.

Congratulations, Mr President

January 20, 2009

Our 44th president has just been sworn in. He had difficulty saying the Oath of Office when it got to swearing to execute the Office of the President of the United States. Even though barry had already officially sworn in at 12:01.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the Oath, Senator?

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: Yes, I am.

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama--

OBAMA: [interrupted Roberts]I, Barack-

ROBERTS: -do solemnly swear,

OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear,

ROBERTS: that I will execute the Office of President to the United States, faithfully,

OBAMA: that I will execute...[Stopped. Nodded to Justice Roberts.]

ROBERTS: faithfully, the pres-The Office of President to the United States

OBAMA: the office of the President of the United States, faithfully,

ROBERTS: and will to the best of my ability,

OBAMA: and will to the best of my ability,

ROBERTS: preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,

OBAMA: preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

ROBERTS: So help you, God?

OBAMA: So help me, God.

ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr President.

OBAMA: Thank you.