Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Supreme Court Prayer Ruling Protects Freedom of Religion and Speech

“Some desire to enthrone a rigid secularism as the state religion while suppressing all other views. In contrast, ordered liberty allows free expression for all.” — Mark Tooley, IRD President
WASHINGTON, May 5, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled today that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with prayer.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that Christian prayers given before meetings of the town council of Greece, New York did not violate the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion.
IRD President Mark Tooley commented:
“We can be grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court in ‘Greece v. Galloway’ upheld freedom of speech and religion by affirming the right of a town council to hear unrestricted prayer by local clergy. Kudos to groups like the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Becket Fund for their court briefs and advocacy.
“Sadly, the court ruling was narrowly 5-4. And more religious groups should have actively spoken to the issue. Some actually filed briefs against the town council’s allowing unrestricted prayers.
“Some desire to enthrone a rigid secularism as the state religion while suppressing all other views. In contrast, ordered liberty allows free expression for all. Religious freedom remains under attack, and all persons who cherish freedom of speech and religion should prepare for future battles.”

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Rehearing On German Homeschooling Case

PURCELLVILLE, Va., March 3, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — On the morning of March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied review in the appeal of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike after years of fighting for asylum in the American court system. The Romeikes are a German homeschool family who fled to the United States in 2008 to avoid losing custody of their children to the German government. According to Germany’s highest court, the German ban on homeschooling is designed to insure that religious homeschoolers do not become a “parallel society.”
Michael Farris, Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and lead counsel for the Romeikes in the appellate courts, said, “While this is the end of the line for normal legal appeals, we are not giving up.”
The initial immigration judge hearing the case granted the Romeikes’ request for asylum in 2010 on religious freedom grounds.
The Obama Administration appealed that decision and prevailed on two levels of appeals.
Prior to today’s denial, the Supreme Court had ordered the United States Solicitor General to respond to the Romeike’s petition. The case had also been carried forward for one week on the Court’s conference schedule—normally a sign of some interest in the case by the Court.
Describing HSLDA’s plans for the Romeikes, Farris said, “We will pursue changes to the asylum law in this country to insure that religious freedom is once again vigorously protected in our policy. I am just glad that the Pilgrims did not face this anti-religious policy when they landed at Plymouth Rock.
“After all, the Pilgrims left England to find religious freedom, but they left Holland to find a place that was both safe for their children and which provided religious freedom,” Farris noted. “These are the very values which our nation today has decided to abandon.”

Supreme Court Sits on German Homeschool Asylum Case

PURCELLVILLE, Va., Feb. 24, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — In an unexpected turn, the United States Supreme Court has apparently decided to continue thinking about Home School Legal Defense Association’s German homeschool asylum case, Romeike v. Holder. The case had been scheduled for review by the Court on Friday, February 21, 2014, and HSLDA expected to see the case on the Court’s order list today either granting or denying cert. However when the list was released at around 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 24, 2014, Romeike was missing.
Michael Farris, HSLDA chairman and principal attorney for the family, was guarded but positive in his reaction to the Court’s action.
“It’s not no,” he said. “And it’s not abnormal for the Court to hold over discussion of some cases from time to time. Sometimes they hold cases based on upcoming decisions. Or they may want more time to discuss the case. It’s impossible to know precisely what the Court is doing, but we remain hopeful.”
In 2010, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted the Romeikes asylum, ruling that the United States should “be a place of refuge” for the family. But the Obama administration revoked that asylum in 2012. HSLDA appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the administration’s position.
HSLDA has been representing the family since they began their legal quest for asylum in 2008. When Uwe and Hannelore left Germany with their children, they were fleeing persecution in the form of crushing fines, loss of custody of their children, and criminal prosecution for homeschooling.
The importance of the Romeike case is underscored by experience of another German family—the Wunderlichs. A family court judge in Darmstadt, Germany, has refused to return legal custody to the parents of the four children who are now attending public school by court order. The judge in that case cited German Supreme Court cases that have said that homeschooling endangers the welfare of children.
HSLDA’s director of international relations said that this is what the Romeikes would face if the U.S. Supreme Court declines their case and they are sent back.
“Germany persecutes homeschooling families under the color of law. German courts refuse to intervene,” Mike Donnelly said. “Even the European Court of Human Rights has declined relief. This is an important human rights issue where the United States Supreme Court’s voice is needed to uphold the fundamental notion that parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.”
Hopeful that the Supreme Court will elect to hear the appeal, Farris affirmed HSLDA’s commitment to this family. “The Romeikes are modern day pilgrims,” he said. “We are determined to fight for their freedom until our last breath. There is no way I will stand by and see this family deported to Germany to be mistreated.”

Thomas More Society Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Autocam’s Obamacare Case

KENTWOOD, Mich., Oct. 15, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, joined forces with Catholic Vote Legal Defense Fund and a Michigan law firm, to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent decision, denying the claims of Autocam, an international automotive manufacturer, and its owners, that Obamacare’s so-called “HHS mandate” abridges their federal constitutional and statutory rights to the free exercise of their religious faith as well as other legal rights. John Kennedy, CEO of Michigan-based family-owned company, Autocam, joined the company as well as its other family owners to urge the Justices to rule that the government has no right to require that Autocam purchase group insurance coverage, providing its employees with morally objectionable contraceptives, including abortifacients (e.g., the so-called abortion pill, Plan B, and “Ella”), and sterilization.

Kennedy and his children, Paul, John, Margaret, and Thomas Kennedy, all faithfully embrace the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that contraception, abortion, and sterilization are serious wrongs. The HHS mandate, therefore, forces these petitioners to flout their deeply held religious convictions and operate their company in a manner that they sincerely hold to constitute grave wrongdoing.

Prior to the government’s implementation of the HHS mandate, Autocam had specifically designed a health insurance plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan to exclude contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortion-inducing drugs, in full accord and harmony with its owners’ profound religious beliefs.

“Forcing citizens to violate their conscientious religious beliefs makes a mockery of the very notion of religious freedom,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “This cannot be tolerated in a society that professes to honor fundamental civil liberties.” Even apart from the constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and free speech, the company and its owners are also protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, absent a compelling interest for doing so and then only by resort to the least burdensome means. But the petitioners for Supreme Court review contend that providing insurance for birth control or other products or services that are widely available and affordable hardly qualifies as a compelling interest, and that even if that interest were deemed compelling, the government could have opted to use other means — such as providing free contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilizations free of charge, or subsidizing their cheap and easy accessibility for all those desiring them, without burdening or curtailing anybody else’s religious liberties.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that conducting business for profit is somehow wholly divorced from the religious beliefs of the business or its owners and operators. But Brejcha criticizes this ruling as reflecting a crabbed and unduly narrow view of religion, confining it to the sacred space inside the four walls of houses of worship. He argues that that morals as well as money-making have a key role to play in the marketplace; that religious faith shapes, informs and sustains one’s morals; and that a robust or meaningful religious faith must be practiced as well as professed in every aspect of life. He concludes, “Indeed, our criminal laws demand that American businesses as well as their owners act in accord with myriad laws designed to serve the public welfare and the common good, rather than maximization of profits. People of faith must not be coerced to check their religious liberties at the door when they enter the commercial marketplace.”

Read the Autocam petition filed with the United States Supreme Court here.

German Homeschoolers Asylum: Home School Legal Defense petitions US Supreme Court

HSLDA_LogoPURCELLVILLE, Va., Oct. 10, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is filing a petition with the United States Supreme Court to hear Romeike v. Holder, the German homeschooling asylum case.

In April 2013, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the Obama Administration’s revocation of asylum granted to the family in 2010.

The original immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman, granted the Romeike family asylum on January 26, 2010, under the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) because Germany’s national policy of suppressing homeschooling violated their religious faith and because German authorities were improperly motivated to suppress homeschoolers as a social group.

In its ruling against the Romeikes, the Sixth Circuit rejected the judge’s findings, stating that Germany’s harsh treatment of homeschoolers did not amount to persecution and that the German authorities were not motivated by an improper purpose.

HSLDA Chairman and principal author of the petition, Michael Farris, said that the Court should intervene for the sake of justice.

“The United States should be a place of asylum for those who are persecuted because of their decision to follow their core religious beliefs,” he said.  “Parents, not the government, decide first how children are educated. Germany’s notorious persecution of families who homeschool violates their own obligations to uphold human rights standards and must end.”

Farris argues that there is a clear split in the treatment of human rights standards among federal circuits and that there is confusion among the circuits about how to determine when a law that applies to everyone and doesn’t appear discriminatory can still be used to persecute certain groups.

“In virtually all other circuits,” Farris said, “the Romeikes’ chances of success would have been decisively higher. But in this case, the Sixth Circuit created a new standard that dramatically departs from its own, as well as the Supreme Court’s, jurisprudence in U.S. asylum law. The Supreme Court needs to settle this area of law.”

This case is important to HSLDA’s mission to advance freedom for persecuted homeschoolers, said Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly.

“Germany’s clear violations of human rights standards in the area of homeschooling have been going on for over a decade,” he said. “German authorities recently seized the Wunderlich children and are prosecuting others — seeking outrageous jail terms — just because of homeschooling. Germany’s repression of homeschooling freedom is infecting other European nations and our country should send a message that the United States will provide a refuge for victims of persecution even from ostensibly free democratic countries like Germany.”

Without minimizing the reality of physical persecution and other types of human rights violations in other countries, HSLDA argues that the imposition of crushing fines, seizure of children, and disproportionate criminal penalties over homeschooling amount to persecution. The brief argues that the German Supreme Court’s explicit approval for unequal treatment of homeschoolers for religious or philosophical reasons clearly violates human rights standards that the United States must recognize.

The petition places considerable reliance on the statements of the highest courts in Germany that explain that the purpose of the repression of homeschoolers was to prevent “religious and philosophical minorities” from developing into “parallel societies.”

Human rights standards make it plain that, although a nation may require compulsory attendance and may impose reasonable rules related to educational quality, no nation my exercise philosophical control over a child’s education contrary to the parent’s beliefs. “These human rights protections were written in response to Germany’s practices in the Nazi era,” Farris added. “It is impossible to distinguish the German desire for philosophical conformity today from that of the 1930s. Children do not belong to any government in any decade.”

Hammered Radio – Special Edition – NSA/Snowden SCOTUS Panel

photo

 

When: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Hammered Radio – Special Edition – NSA/Snowden SCOTUS Panel

Tonight: This is a Special Edition of Hammered Radio – NSA/Snowden SCOTUS Roundtable discussion. Stevie J West and Steve Hamilton will be speaking with our special Guests:

Mandy Nagy – Investigative Writer for Legal Insurrection & Breitbart ‘The Convo.’ @Liberty_Chick on twitter

Kira Ayn Davis – Contributor at http://ijreview.com , video blogger, and host of “The Dark Side with Kira Davis” on FTR Radio. @KiraAynDavis on twitter

Susie Moore – Lawyer, Host of Gillespie on FTR Radio, and blogger. @SmoosieQ on twitter

This will be an exciting show as Mandy discusses Edward Snowden’s history, actions, and possible outcomes of his actions. Kira will also help us understand why this has become such a divisive subject between various Conservative Groups. And, we will get into the NSA itself. Are their actions legal, constitutional? How far should our government go to “protect” us and when does it cross the line into invasion of privacy?

We’re also talkikng about the landmark SCOTUS rulings this week and Susie will share her thoughts and understandings on their impact.

We have a lot to cover and a great panel to help shed light on this complicated and changing situation. Callers Welcome, see you there :)

Prop 8 Ruling Avoided: Supreme Court clears the path for gay marriage in California

Image via LA Times

Image via LA Times

The Supreme Court has ruled that California citizens who want to uphold the gay marriage ban do not have the right to appeal the lower court rulings striking down the ban.

Proposition 8 was passed by the voters of California in 2008, but last year, the federal court of appeals deemed it unconstitutional.

This 5-4 decision is another win for gay marriage in America.

SCOTUS Hearing on Obama Eligibility: 14 Congressman served subpoenas

This is the latest Press Release From Orly Taitz regarding the her lawsuit on Barack Obama’s eligibility that is before the Supreme Court.

Press Release: 14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court.

orly_taitz_sitting

 

14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary Committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court. Most of the congressmen served are members of the Judiciary committee. Most of them are attorneys, former prosecutors and judges. Proof of service on every Congressman is being posted on orlytaitzesq.com today and tomorrow. Copies are being sent by certified mail to the US Attorneys’ office-Department of Justice and are being filed with the presiding Judge Morrison C. England. Donations to cover expenses are greatly appreciated. Law abiding U.S. citizens have a right to contact their congressmen and demand that they comply with subpoenas expeditiously.

More information and posted proofs of service on OrlyTaitzESQ.com

Donations can be made through paypal on orlytaitzesq.com or by mailing to

Defend our Freedoms Foundation

c/o Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

[email protected]


attachment_id=399458″ rel=”attachment wp-att-399458″>URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

On 12.12.2012 a legal action Grinols, Odden, Judd, Noonen and MacLaren v Electoral College, President of the Senate, Congress, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry ) Soetoro, aka Barack Barry Soebarkah, Governor of California and Secretary of State of California was filed by several Presidential electors and minor presidential candidates. The case number is 12-cv-02997 Presiding Judge Morrison C. England Eastern District of California. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy U.S. Attorney Edward Olsen made an appearance as attorneys representing U.S. Congress, President of the Senate, Electoral College and Barack Obama. A motion for a TRO (temporary restraining order ) was filed by the plaintiffs to enjoin the certification of the electoral votes for Obama and enjoin taking of the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of the fact that he is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never signed to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS, due to the fact that in his mother’s passport he is listed under a different last name, Soebarkah, due to the fact that multiple experts and members of law enforcement found his Selective Service application and long form and short form birth certificates to be computer generated forgeries and a number of other reasons. U.S. attorneys Wagner and Olsen filed an opposition to the TRO. Their opposition means that each and every US congressman, U.S. Senator, each and every Elector; all 435 US representatives, all 100 Senators, all 538 Presidential Electors oppose adjudication on the merits of above issues and do not want to get answers to the questions essential to the U.S. National security prior to the inauguration. It came to the attention of the plaintiffs that a number of Defendants actually shared the concerns of the plaintiffs and did not know that the US attorneys represented them and opposed the motion for TRO. You are requested to fill out the questioner below and clarify whether you were aware of the facts and evidence provided with the complaint and that you authorized Wagner and Olsen to oppose the TRO.

Questions Initialyes Initialno
1. I was notified that U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy Attorney General Edward Olsen(hereinafter Wagner and Olsen) are representing me in Grinols et al v Electoral College et al12-cv-02997 Eastern District of California, presiding Chief Judge Morrison C. England(Attorney for Plaintiffs Orly Taitz, 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] )
2. I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate, long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro aka Barack (Barry) obama Soebarkah and evidence of fraudulent use by him of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama
3. Wagner and Olsen forwarded to me a sworn affidavit of the retired Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Coast Guard and former special agent for the Department of Homeland Security Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, where Coffman states under the penalty of perjury that the alleged application for Selective Service by Barack Obama is an altered document
4. I was given by Wagner and Olsen the TRO motion, where it is explained that a male who did not register with the Selective Service and who does not have a valid registration for the Selective Service (not an altered or forged one, but a valid one) is disqualified from holding any position within the Executive branch of the United States government pursuant to 5 USC § 3328.
5. I am aware that as part of their complaint plaintiffs provided 2009 tax returns for Barack Obama, which show him using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, even though Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and according to E-verify and SSNVS this number was never assigned to Obama
6. I have read sworn affidavits of Sheriff of Maricopa County Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Mike Zullo, Retired Senior Deportation officer John Sampson, licensed Investigator Susan Daniels attesting to evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service Certificate and Social Security card
7. I viewed the video tape of the press conference by Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo, as well as sworn witness testimony of witnesses Susan Daniels, Linda Jordan, Douglas Vogt, Felicito Papa attesting to evidence of fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs
8. I read the passport records of deceased Stanley Ann Dunham, the mother of Barack Obama, obtained under Freedom of Information Act, included with the complaint, showing Obama listed under the last name Soebarkah in his mother’s passport records. I understand that one has to be sworn in under a correct legal name.
9. I read the sworn affidavit of the assistant clerk of the office of the Registrar of Hawaii Timothy Adams stating that it was a common knowledge in the office of the Registrar of Hawaii that there is no birth certificate for Obama in any hospital in Hawaii
10. I reviewed the biography of Barack Obama submitted by Barack Obama to his publisher Acton-Dystel in 1991 and kept on the official web site of Acton Dystel, where Obama stated that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. I understand that this biography was removed from the official web site of the publisher in 2007 when Obama decided to run for the U.S. President and needed to be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen
11. I understand that Obama’s alleged selective service certificate contains a two digit year stamp “80″, while for over a hundred years all U.S. stamps have a four digit year, such as “”1980″
12. I understand that Obama’s alleged copy of his long form birth certificate contains letters of different shapes and different sizes, which is impossible when the documents is created with a type writer.
13. I understand that not one single judge or jury or forensic document expert was allowed to see the original birth certificate for Obama, the original application for the Selective Service and the original application for the Connecticut Social Security number used by Barack Obama
14. I understand that in his School registration in Indonesia in 1967 Barack Obama is listed as a citizen of Indonesia. I understand that there is no record of him changing his citizenship after returning to the U.S. from Indonesia and relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship. I understand that even if Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah were to change his citizenship upon his return from Indonesia, he would be naturalized and not natural born citizen as required for the position of the U.S. President according to article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
15. I understand that in his school registration in Indonesia Barack Obama is listed under the last name of his step father Soetoro. I understand that there is no record of Obama ever changing his name from Soetoro to Obama
16. With full knowledge of above facts I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a temporary stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office of the U.S. President by Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack(Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry ) Obama Soebarkah pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate, his long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate, evidence of fraudulent use of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama and other related issues

Signed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Representative/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Senator/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Presidential elector/state

____________________________________________________________________________________

President of the Senate Joseph Biden

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dated

Please, forward the signed form to the Attorney for the Plaintiffs

Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] at your earliest convenience. Due to the great importance to the National security answers are requested to be sent immediately by fax or e-mail and followed up by sending a certified copy by mail

Update: SCOTUS never commented on the merits of Obama’s eligibility case

supreme_courtThis is an update from Dr. Orly Taitz, on the Supreme Court decision handed down on the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility case on Tuesday, February 19, 2013.

 

My conversation with Mr. Dennison from SCOTUS blog

I talked to Mr. Dennison, writer of the SCOTUS blog. I called his cell number 301-512-4731.

He was correct in stating that SCOTUS only denied the STAY as Obama was already sworn in, SCOTUS never commented on the merits of the case, never stated that Obama’s papers are valid.

I asked, why did they sent 5 packets back. He said that they only need the decision of 4 justices to go to the next stage of oral argument. I responded that this looks even more corrupt and treasonous, it means that they sent the remaining packets to 4 liberal justices and 5 conservative justices never saw the papers. He stated that if I feel that the high treason was committed, I should file a complaint with the Justice department. I responded that the Justice department is complicit. I forwarded all the info to Holder and he never responded. I told him that in NAZI Germany they also had a Justice Department, Supreme Court, Parliament and judges, none of whom found one single action by Adolf Hitler to be unconstitutional and that is what we have now in the U.S. He said that he knows, that he is old enough to know what happened in Germany, but he can’t talk further.

SCOTUS Employees Caught withholding legal documents from Supreme Court Justices

supreme_court

PRESS RELEASE

Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Law offices of  Orly taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita ca 92688

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

[email protected]

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681

 

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

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

02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

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

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

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

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin.  She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a)An individual—

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

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

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

 

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

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

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

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

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public,  media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as

Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an

application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same

employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone thatthere is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

 

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press Release via Orly Taitz, Esq.

H/T Red Flag News

Nullification: We Don’t Need Permission To Exercise Our Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare ws ‘Constitutional’, but ‘let them come and enforce it!’

“We don’t need permission to exercise our rights!”

A documentary by Jason Rink: Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

YouTube Description:

What do we do when the Federal Government steps outside of it’s constitutional boundaries? Do we ask federal bureaucrats in black robes to enforce the limits of it’s own power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the several States. It’s called “nullification” or “interposition.” It’s an idea whose time has come.

This just released documentary from the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center features Thomas Woods, Michael Boldin, Debra Medina, Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Kevin Gutzman, Mike Maharrey, and others. In it we explore the history of state nullification, the constitutional legitimacy of the idea, and how nullification can be used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

SENATOR Joe Biden’s Prophetic Words To Chief Justice Roberts

If you are not a Bible prophecy watcher, this video may be too much for you. However, I would have never imagined Joe Biden speaking prophecy!

This is Chief Justice John Roberts confirmation hearing, and then-Senator Joe Biden was questioning him on the “Micro-chip”. Senator Biden tells John Roberts:

“Can a microscopic tag be implanted in a person’s body to track his every movement? There’s actual discussion about that.You will rule on that, mark my words, before your tenure is over.”

For all the prophecy naysayers out there, here is an article- by an Obama supporter- that explains:

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.” Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in15
formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see…

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a “implantable radiofrequency
transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

This Obama supporter ends his article with this:

So will everyone be covered by the public option eventually??????

And does that mean everyone will be chipped?????

Micro-chipping citizens is part of Obamacare! Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on this, just as Joe Biden said he would.

If you follow the link to the quoted article, you will see that the author thinks those who receive the chip are  the “lucky ones”.

Now, believe what you will, where Bible prophecy is concerned, but personally, I would have never imagined Joe Biden to be the one to speak such prophetic words!

Now, is Obamacare the actual Mark of the Beast? There is great debate, even among religious circles, as to the answer to this question. I cannot say that it is, but neither can I say it will not be.  However, this Scripture certainly makes is clear that someday, it will come to pass, that all will be required to receive a mark of some kind.

“And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either  the name of the beast or  the number of his name.”  Revelation 13:16-17

« Older Entries