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)

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

Keyes v Bowen: Explanation and links

February 24, 2009

I have been asked many times over the last two weeks to clarify Keyes v Bowen. Here's a quick rundown and there are links at the bottom.

Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Wiley S Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party are suing Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State and the California Board of Electors to prevent the certification of the vote in the Electoral College. (Obviously it already happened.)

Similar to Gail Lightfoot v Bowen.

Lawyers for Keyes et al are Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz.

Basis of suit: Secretary of State Sandra Bowen was charged with the responsibility of proving barry was eligible to be president before she put his name on the ballot. The Board of Electors have the same responsibility before they certify the vote.

The basis of barry's ineligibility: he is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

That either he was not born on American soil or he lost his citizenship while he was living in Indonesia from age 6-10. If he was adopted by his Indonesian father - he lost his American citizenship because there was no provision for dual citizenship.

Supporting this is barry's claim of traveling to Pakistan at a time when Americans weren't allowed.

Supporting the claim that he was not born in Hawaii is barry grandmother Sarah Obama's claim that he was born in Kenya.

Also that he has never released his original long form birth certificate and the possibility that the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a forgery.

NOTE: The claim that he is not a natural born citizen by virtue of his dual citizenship - UK & US - at birth as conferred by his father was basically quashed by the Supreme Court via Donofrio and Wrotnowski.

Keyes sent out a subpoena to Occidental College in an attempt to obtain barry's academic and housing records. If provided, they might provide his place of birth and what he considered his citizenship to be. Such as if he received financial aid as a foreign student.

KEYESv BOWEN

California Superior Court
Case Number: 2008-80000096
Filing Date: 11/13/2008
Case Type: Writ of Mandate
Case Title: AMBASSADOR DR ALAN KEYES VS. CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN

Keyes v Bowen: Explanation and Links
11-13 Keyes v Bowen: Petition for Writ of Mandate

1-15 Occidental College Subpoena: Relevant text
1-15 Occidental College Subpoena: Official pdf

2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Motion to Quash (text)
2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Notice of Motion to Quash (pdf)
2-11 Occidental College Subpoena: Motion to Quash (pdf)
2-20 Occidental College Subpoena: Discussion of Motion to Quash

3-13 Scheduled Hearing

2-24 Keyes: "Obama is a radical Communist!"

***

I hope that helps because it's all I know. Other links if you need them.

Berg, Wrotnowski, Donofrio
Lightfoot v Bowen
Hollister v Soetoro
Dr Fukino on COLB
COLB vs Long form birth certificate
Birth certificate archive

Lightfoot v Bowen DENIED (1-26)

January 26, 2009

No surprise.

Lightfoot v Bowen DENIED.

No. 08A524
Title:	Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:

(S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 26 2009 Application (08A524) denied by the Court.

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.

Lightfoot v Bowen disappeared off SCOTUS Docket

January 22, 2009

Well, I am not a conspiracist...but what the hell is going on? barry's in power one day and Lightfoot v Bowen has disappeared off the docket. Poof! It's still in the google cache and is the same as in the previous post - the last entry a request for recusal - but I can't find it on the Supreme Court website. It was due to be conferenced 1-23-09 and as far as I know it was not dismissed.

Anyone?

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm = The requested URL /docket/08a524.htm was not found on this server.

Are they prepared for a revolt of the bolsheviks?

In our own little world - this site - mysteriously seized up and quit over the weekend and has been extremely slowly in loading since then. Our original site on blogger - goggle just stopped crawling. Nothing for the entire month of November. It's why we came over here. Then Technorati stopped pinging it mid-December and they have not once responded to our emails. I'll have to go check if they're still pinging us here...

Official Subpoena: Occidental College

January 22, 2009

Thanks kelly1990. I don't know what happened. The pdf copy was here. The link works though.

Source

barry's birth certificate: Lightfoot v Brown docket

No. 08A524
Title:	Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:

(S168690)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008	Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008	Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009	Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009	Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz	26302 La Pa
Counsel of Record	Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

Bill Anderson's brief re: barry's eligibility

January 18, 2009

Well here's the amicus curiae "friend of the court" brief from Bill Anderson accepted by SCOTUS when they denied Berg v Obama on 1-12-09. If I understand it correctly, Anderson is an outside agent who has an interest in the case and believes SCOTUS needs to look at aspects of the case that have not previously been examined. It doesn't mean SCOTUS has any obligation to do anything further except read it. They're just covering themselves. I have a post about the meaning of "standing" - the major hurdle in these cases - which I have to find amongst the over two thousand drafts we have.

Basically, to challenge the constitutionality of something the plaintiff has to prove that some harm will come about. That harm has to fulfill three criteria and then on top of that there are three more judicially imposed criteria. Strangely, from what I grasp, all US citizens have the true potential of harm if barry is ineligible, but a single citizen does not have standing because the harm is not limited to them.

That is the difference in the Hollister v Obama case. The retired, but subject to recall at any time by the Commander in Chief, Col Hollister will be directly affected where Berg is not. Berg is acting as an interpleader. Col Hollister's potential further actions in the USAF would directly hinge on the orders of the CIC. If barry is not eligible - is Col Hollister bound to obey or disobey direct orders? That is his standing.

Lightfoot v has a different twist and involves citizens, military members and election officials. Another post.

Here's the pdf of the full brief. Here's a link to the Free Republic discussion of it, which made more sense than the brief itself.

Caveat: This is just my understanding of it. You asked - I provided. Anyone who knows please comment and I'll append it to the post. I know it's a totally useless cause, but we, like you, will not have been taken by obamahoax. The truth will be known one day no matter how the Secret Service and other government agencies have tried to hide it. That's another post I need to find.

Has anyone noticed how chipper barry has been lately? Besides getting his fix of robamabot adoration, he and Biden met with SCOTUS this week as per "routine". Another post. I imagine that had they had reservations, they would have asked him outright for evidence. I imagine they didn't, which explain would then explain his chipperness.

A snippet of Anderson's brief:

The amicus is a citizen of the State of Arizona [Bill Anderson] and an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States. He voted in the general election held by the State of Arizona on November 4, 2008. This Court has in fact recognized that the amicus has an interest in this type of case.

Your amicus submits that it will not be possible for this Court to dispose of this case properly without considering the following points which either have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or which have not been adequately discussed:

1.) This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and,

2.) The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, 2 and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, crises that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,

3.) With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Background and updates

No decision on Berg v Obama (1-9-09)

January 9, 2009

I have heard nothing and can find no evidence of any ruling by SCOTUS on the Berg case. Nothing updated on the docket ot the order so it’s Monday. Same thing they did with Donofrio and the refusal was out first thing Monday. Anyone have info please share.

I’m still working on the summary on the Lightfoot case from California that was distributed on 1-7-09 and is scheduled for conference on 1-23-09. Won’t finish until later - maybe early tomorrow.