The following excerpts briefly describe some of the reasons for her refile:
The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009.
The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case. …
The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided.
Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2009 [my link], one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases. However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased, This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.
Dr. Taitz further describes how she’ll deliver her motion:
Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States, FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.
At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.
Here is the link to the Lightfoot v. Bowen existing Supreme Court docket.
Update: From commenter “Sharon 2:”
From Seattle Times
Chief Justice John Roberts discusses Lincoln
“. . .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.
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. . . .”
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.