Lightfoot v. Bowen Refiled, Easterling v. Obama: Quo Warranto Filed at SCOTUS; Update: Docs from Idaho Now at SCOTUS
Yesterday, Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Lightfoot v. Bowen, officially resubmitted her case, alleging that Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) Clerk Danny Bickell refused to follow established procedures in handling the case.
Dr. Taitz also confirmed the following:
It has been learned, proven, and now documented that many of the signed receipt documents send in since December have not been received. Dr. Taitz, or our Lady Liberty, will have a full detailed account for everyone soon.
Simultaneously, a Motion for Leave to File Writ of Quo Warranto was similarly filed against the President, Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI), “to provide evidence,” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “to request evidence from the United Kingdom, and Republics of Kenya, Indonesia, and Pakistan.”
Based on the viewed list of quo warranto relators, it was not immediately clear if all 100+ Plaintiffs that Dr. Taitz has said that have consented to such a lawsuit are included in this specific filing, as only 9 individuals can be counted presently, with no further indication of others (e.g.: “et al.”).
A PDF of the above paperwork can be seen here.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Update: Dr. Taitz is now reporting the following:
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. just received a phone call from Karen Thornton at the Department of Justice. She stated that all of Orly’s documents and filings have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General, Elena Kagan (pictured, right). That includes all three Dossiers, the Quo Warranto Easterling v. Obama aka Soetoro. …
Coincidently, after Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court. Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and being analyzed now. Also, Justice Roberts must be back because the Officer also stated that all the documents that were given to Chief Justice Roberts at Iowan University are now at the Supreme Court and are also being analyzed. We will be notified tomorrow after 1:00pm EST as to whether they will be on the docket at the Supreme Court. [emphasis mine]
Update: The above should have been the University of Idaho, not Iowa (thanks to my readers for pointing out this error).
Here is the docket from the original case.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- Lightfoot v. Bowen: Dr. Taitz Files Motion to Reconsider, Quo Warranto
- Eligibility Update: Martin v. Lingle Moving Forward; Dr. Taitz’ SCOTUS Documents
- Lightfoot v. Bowen: Filed with SCOTUS
- Lightfoot v. Bowen: CA Supreme Court Case “Petition for Extraordinary Writ for Mandamus for Stay”
- Lightfoot v. Bowen: Distributed for January 23 Conference
All Hussein has to do is produce the long form. Or maybe he cannot…
Starla,
As you can see in my About Me page, I am simply a concerned citizen from the great State of Georgia that started this site on Friday, October 24, 2008 as a personal experiment. It has since taken off beyond even what I thought it would do.
I am not a lawyer; I am an IT professional. I am learning about the eligibility and other issues as news moves forward. I have also been blessed to make contact with virtually all of the main players in the saga and have garnered numerous other friends (and friendly foes) in the process.
Anything on this site that posts as “Phil” is by me, and any commentary that shows “Phil” with the email “phil@therightsideoflife.com” (which every comment has associated with it) is similarly from me.
I hope that helps,
-Phil
When someone answers questions & offers answers concerning the law on here & signs the name “Phil,” I am wondering who is answering the questions on “The Right Of Life” named “Phil?” “Phil,” are you a lawyer who answers the questions on here? I was just wondering if “Phil Berg” the P.A. attorney is writting on this blog answering questions as “Phil.” Will someone let me know? Just wondering, Thanks! Starla
I cannot find the most recent posts…. Lost them.
Here is Orly’s most recent call to action.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/04/01/i-need-volunteers-to-make-phone-calls.aspx
I need volunteers to make phone calls
As I recall, Berg has a notice on his blog that calling SCOTUS would only hurt his cases, not help. Berg instructed his supporters NOT to call SCOTUS.
These allegations against SCOTUS and Deputy Clerk Danny Bickell are ridiculous when you have a good understanding of how SCOTUS works and a good understanding of the Supreme Court Rules. Dr. Taitz has absolutely no credible evidence to support her allegations against SCOTUS. Instead of making these wild accusations against SCOTUS; if I were Dr. Taitz, I would seek the assistance and counsel of a attorney who had a good grasp of the way SCOTUS works and the Supreme Court Rules.
Phil, who previous turned off threading of comments, asked,
SCOTUS denied all these petitions without comment.
I had written:
brygenon,
Are we still talking about SCOTUS? If so, which precedent said such? My understanding is that Congress has jurisdiction on eligibility challenges but certainly not to the exclusion of other venues, such as the States (via candidate qualification statutes) or the People (via a presidential campaign).
-Phil
Phil wrote,
Phil, I’m not saying you have to agree with the court or approve of how congress acted. I’m saying the court answered whether you like the answer or not. The court held that Congress has jurisdiction on eligibility challenges and going over and over your denial on your blog has zero effect on the court’s ruling.
As predicted, the Supreme Court refused to accept the docs for filing:
Orly’s letter to Justice Roberts:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/26/letter-to-chief-justice-roberts-032609.aspx
brygenon,
Haven’t we already been over this? Maybe I was responding to someone else’s comments, because the above claim RE: Joint Session of Congress validates presidential eligibility is completely unconstitutional. Allow me to repeat:
The only thing that the Joint Session of Congress in early January, 2009 did was certify Electoral votes. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that there was supposed to have been a call for objections regarding the candidates in question is an ancillary fact; neither a move to object nor the lack thereof in any way can be shown to constitute a substantiation or not of eligibility (unless, of course, you can cite precedent otherwise). Even if it were, it would still be inconclusive, as there is a very specific protocol in place with which at least one Representative and one Senator must file the objection, and such a motion is not guaranteed to be heard. Therefore, that’s hardly evidence to support the notion that this Joint Session could be even 100% relied upon to substantiate eligibility.
-Phil
Phil noted,
Now compare what you say I’m free to do with what I actually did. I noted a case where standing was not an issue. The court disclaimed jurisdiction, but identified the body that does have jurisdiction on eligibility challenges, namely the U.S. Congress in joint session as per the 12′th Amendment.
The matter was decided. You may not like the answers, but the idea that you did not get them is pure fantasy.
“It has been learned, proven, and now documented that many of the signed receipt documents send in since December have not been received. Dr. Taitz, or our Lady Liberty, will have a full detailed account for everyone soon.”
I wonder why Dr. Taitz hasn’t published her above claim with her “proven and now documented” evidence?
brygenon,
While you’re certainly free to characterize the lack of standing or jurisdiction as a “win” for any given side, I would say that that kind of characterization is an embellishment of the facts. Nothing was, in fact, heard, so there was nothing “won” or “lost,” per se.
-Phil
And nothing will “happen” in the future, according to your definition, because the “technicalities” go to the heart of our Constitutional system: the courts do not have the legal power to take the actions requested. (and even if they did, they would end up ruling against your position — but that’s another issue altogether)
I would seriously recommend that you get in the habit of checking this web site on a regular basis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
The US Supreme Court has very serious cases before it just about every day of the week — but Orly Taitz’ lawsuits just don’t happen to be included in that category. But reading the above blog might give you some sense of how to sort out the serious stuff from the frivolous — and there are plenty of links that will allow you to see what high quality legal briefing actually looks like.
Phil wrote,
Me??? I found Taitz’s report on the response to the petitions this article describes, then you went off with this “nothing has actually happened, yet”.
So nothing has actually happened in the lawsuits except Obama’s side winning dozens of times. Note that in Keyes v. Bowen, the court found persuasive, “that the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
Congress has completed their 12′th Amendment task, so the matter is decided. I gather you did not get the investigation and outcome that you wanted, but it’s their call.
Congress is answerable to the people, in that you can campaign and vote against your senators and representative, or maybe even run against them. Orly Taitz’s idea of recalling them, not so much.
brygenon,
If you’re not going to stick with the flow of the commentary, then please backtrack before proceeding forward.
As a recap, I was speaking about the President’s eligibility RE: lawsuits and any/all other petitions. Nothing has happened yet except that a bunch of lawsuits have been struck down, predominantly based on legitimate technicalities.
Of course the Legislative process ran its course. But that’s not what we were talking about here.
-Phil
Phil thought,
Nothing has actually happened? The electoral college voted. Congress certified the vote without a single objection. The Chief Justice of the United States swore in Barack Obama as the 44′th President (twice!). Just because you took no clue from it does not mean it did not happen.
brygenon,
I think I already look “silly” to you, Reality Check, and other real or potential “illegtimizers” who frequent my site. So, one could say you’re asking a loaded question.
Further, as I’ve said before, having not found an avenue in which to push the matter forward does not in any way diminish the legitimacy of the question. Let’s not forget that everything is still essentially at square one with respect to actually challenging the merits of the question, so while it’s easy to say that such-and-such will or will not happen, nothing has actually happened, yet.
-Phil
More from Taitz’s site:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/26/letter-to-chief-justice-roberts-032609.aspx
She reports receiving a letter from William “The General” Suter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Suter
Taitz writes, in part:
Phil said:
When you know all the facts for the issue, then you can make statements such as what you did.
I know these facts:
- Orly’s case WAS docketed and WAS denied by SCOTUS.
- Orly’s accusation that her case was removed from the docket mysteriously was caused by computer software issues that affected other cases too.
- Orly has a history of exaggerating and lying and can present no evidence that she had anything more than a misunderstanding with Mr. Bickell.
- Orly’s first reaction when things do not go her way is to concoct evil conspiracies out of thin air.
What other facts do I need to know? For me, that is enough to make an extremely informed opinion about the Bickell – Taitz affair.
Reality Check,
An accusation against the Clerk in question has been made. Neither you nor I know, for sure (as you have just suggested), what will come of that.
When you know all the facts for the issue, then you can make statements such as what you did.
-Phil
da verg said
“Where’s your proof that the SC even heard this case in the first place and that Bickell or Bickett or whatever that OBOT’s name is, didn’t fake the dockett? Where’s your evidence?”
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Where is your evidence that he did? Where is you evidence that you are not a Communist pretending to be a Birther? You are proposing a conspiracy that would require all nine justices and hundreds of people at the Supreme Court would have to participate in to work. Mr. Bickell alone could never pull it off. The demonization of Mr. Bickell by the Birthers and right wing extremists is one of the unfortunate side effects of Orly’s lying and wild exaggeration. He has done nothing to deserve such hatred.
Let’s be honest. We have trampled the Declaration and the Constitution for decades here; both parties and liberals and conservatives have moved away from Our Founder’s clear instructions. Many wish to continue, even to the point of rewriting the Constitution to reflect secular principles, rather than Judeo-Christian. But we will be held to account. The truth will out; the truth will set us free. Those who obscure the truth and make pedantic arguments to do so, are quite transparent in their desire for power and control. We are witnessing a 21st century vision of Facism. Let’s be honest. I am expecting to be relocated for re-education in one of FEMA’s camps. It is happening faster than we could ever had imagined. While I reject calls for violence, civil disobedience has an honored tradition. I protested Vietnam and I will protest the destruction of what was once the beacon of liberty and freedom for all on the globe. “My only regret is that I have but one life to give to my country.” Nathan Hale
(1) There is no such thing as a “resubmission” of an already dismissed case from the Supreme Court. (2) The time has run out for a rehearing in any case. (3) The idea of “resubmitting” an application for an “Emergency Stay and/or Injunction as to the 2008 Electoral College Meeting” is ridiculous anyway — that is asking the Supreme Court to STOP something that has ALREADY HAPPENED in the PAST. What are they supposed to do, use a time machine?
I’d note that the date for the electoral college meeting is set in stone by the Constitution, which MANDATES that the meeting is to take place in every state on the same day. Even if you could take your imaginary time machine and fly back to November 2008 in order to get a “stay”…. you’d find out that there are some time deadlines that cannot be extended. The electoral college meeting is one of them. Cf. Bush v. Gore.
There is a common Constitutional legal term called due process. Yes, it means that the standard procedures and time limits have to be followed consistently.
That is is correct. And that’s why it’s not being filed as a new action. It’s being filed as a resubmission. There is a common Constitutional legal term called due process. When that is circumvented all “deadlines” go out the window when procedural due process is not followed. A good topic of discussion is procedural justice, as this is exactly what we’re dealing with here.
Kat wrote
An American citizen who was born in Hawaii
>>>really, where’s the proof? You lost me at that lie.
also, all your “it can’t be this
“it can’t be that….” etc.
Where’s your proof that the SC even heard this case in the first place and that Bickell or Bickett or whatever that OBOT’s name is, didn’t fake the dockett? Where’s your evidence?
[unneeded verbiage]
It has never been enforced. And if it were, it would be based on Amendment XIV, which can not be used for qualifications mentioned in Article II as it has no mention of “natural born citizen” anywhere in it. There is now evidence that Chester A. Arthur was not a legal president either, and eligibility issues surrounded him like a hawk back then.
No other presidents have really been questioned about this because all of them have been open and candor about their past and their citizenship as a whole. Even the ineligible McCain openly revealed his information with genuine care and concern over it.
I believe the brew is growing so strong, might not make it to SCOTUS. What ya say Chief Justice Roberts gives BS a call, they already know each other/met, and say Barry, it’s time for you to come clean. Now, my reputation is on the line. What you say??
Amendment 12 & Amendment 20.
As far as I can tell, you seem to want the judiciary to take an action that is clearly reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
It would be a clear violation of the “rule of law” for the judiciary to intercede in case where it lacks jurisdiction or where there is no actual controversy among parties with standing in a case that is ripe for decision. The US Supreme Court does not issue advisory decisions.
I am assuming that you are referring to the fact that Obama’s father is a noncitizen. All legal scholars who have written about the subject and the entire body of relevant US decisional law that could be cited supports the commonly held understanding that “natural born Citizen” means “born within the territorial limits of the U.S.” During the primaries there was some question and debate over whether the Panamanian-born McCain fit that definition, but no issue was ever raised about Obama, simply because any competent lawyer would have seen the claim as frivolous. However, I have no doubt that the issue could have been brought to a court for declaratory and injunctive relief, by an opposing candidate, in a timely basis (well in advance of an election) — and it would likely have been brought if there had been a genuine, plausible legal claim.
So if and when someone seeks the Presidency under circumstances where there is a genuine legal dispute over their qualifications, then the matter can be addressed either in the courts during the primary season. It is one thing to ask the court to rule on a candidate’s eligibility before his or her party nominates him; it is quite another to ask the court to overturn the choice of the electorate based on the claims of a small fraction of disgruntled voters.
This is untrue. Obama released and disseminated his Hawaiian birth certificate during the campaign, allowing full inspection by an independent fact-finding organization. It’s not his fault that some people have decided not to believe it. (There are people who think that the moon landings were faked, too – but that doesn’t change the fact that NASA broadcast films of the landings.)
Would you like Obama to post the birth certificate at Whitehouse.gov? The FEC doesn’t post that sort of documentation, and there is no official government web site that I am aware of that does — I’m sure that if there had been a system in place at the time for the official public display of birth certificates, Obama would have been happy to send them his COLB. I believe John McCain might have had a problem with that, but the reason Obama sent away for his birth certificate in 2007 was most likely so that he would have it on hand if anyone asked.
I would like to point out to you that at the time our Constitution was written, nobody had birth certificates. There simply wasn’t a system in place to officially record birth; the practice of recording vital records came into being in the early 1900’s. See http://www.vitalrec.com — so its rather disingenuous to insist that the Constitution somehow requires proof of birth by some sort of official documentation, in any case.
Practical Kat,
Please cite the specific Article/Section/Clause(s) whereby the eligibility of the President has been legally enforced.
Have you ever seen me anywhere on this blog state that Mr. Obama is anything other than POTUS? I think not, so I don’t know why you’ve brought this fundamental issue up again.
Again, have you ever seen me anywhere on this blog state that the “separation of powers” doctrine should in any way be diminished? Of course not (though I am open to see the evidence to the contrary). Again, I’m not sure why you’ve brought this fundamental issue up again.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in challenging the Judiciary to define what it means to be a “natural born citizen” in light of the current President. Not only this, but there is also absolutely nothing wrong with agitating politicians until such time as they’re willing to take a look at the issue — as Gov. Palin would say — “squarely.”
Again, no vital documentation with respect to this President has ever been released to the public. Not only this, but even the online certification of live birth has only ever been posted on private, third-party web sites, as opposed to an official government web site such as the FEC. To top all of this off, no public official of whom I’m aware has ever actually requested nor seen the President’s vital documentation in public depository. And for that, the only thing that Hawaiian Health Department officials have ever said is that they confirm there is an actual original birth certificate on record in that State; they have never said anything about it with respect to sufficiency for eligibility (not that they even have the authority to do so).
-Phil
It has been enforced, according to the procedures set forth by the Constitution. An American citizen who was born in Hawaii was elected President with more votes than any other elected President in history, through the same process and the same “rule of law” that was applied to all the other Presidents who managed to secure a clear majority of electoral votes in uncontested elections.
The “rule of law” means, among other things, accepting election results, and respecting Constitutional notions of separation of powers and the limits that are place on each branch of government, including the judiciary.
Reality Check,
It would be amazing if we took the same amount of time and energy to enforce laws in our country as we to critiquing the grammatical style of a given person.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
While you’re certainly entitled to your opinion and while you may be right concerning the existing history, I do recall several adversarial comments on this blog saying that the Chief Justice was essentially going to throw Dr. Taitz’ paperwork away.
I really do have to ask: Are you at all interested in following the rule of law? And don’t go into diatribes about Court protocol and all that stuff; we both know that’s fundamentally required in order to move forward at the Judiciary. That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking you if you think that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution ought to be legally enforced. And don’t come back with the idea that there’s currently no way to legally enforce it; we both know that, too.
I’m asking for a very simple, straightforward answer from you.
The rest of this commentary on the minutiae of details really pales in comparison to the bigger question at hand.
-Phil
Reply to Obot 1024 March 24, 2009 at 6:04 pm:
Orly could really use a proofreader.
According to her (with other media accounts), she gave documents to USSCCJ Roberts at the University of Idaho.
She could use a spell checker too. She can never seem to spell names correctly.
Officer Guaccino is a member of the Supreme Court Police Force (yes, there is a small police force that protects the Supreme Court building and justices). In this case “analyze” means analyzed for anthrax or other potential threat and not “analyzed” for legal content. This would be the correct response for unsolicited documents brought to a public forum by a [unneeded verbiage] person.
The following link points to the SCOTUS docket for her original case:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
We’ll have to wait and see when they post it on the site.
It won’t happen.
The PDF copy of Orly’s submission is stamped “Received” but not “Filed”. It can’t be filed under the original Lightfoot v. Bowen docket number because time has expired on that case — that docket number is shut down for all filings, and the time to move for rehearing ran out weeks ago.
It can’t be filed as a new action because the time for Orly to seek review by way or certiorari from the denial of relief by the California Supreme Court has long since expired.
It can’t be filed as an “original” proceeding in the Supreme Court because the US Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction, in either the lawsuit against the California Secretary of State, OR in Quo Warranto actions — an Quo Warranto can’t be brought as a private action in any case.
“Received” does not mean “Filed”.
Phil.
I thought Dr. Taitz spoke at the University of Idaho. Why does the sentence you put in boldface type say
“,,,given to Chief Justice Roberts at Iowan University…” Is this a typo on your part, or did she speak to CJ Roberts in Iowa?
Thanks, Wild Rhodora
Phil,
I know its the wrong place but Politijab is posting Judge Robertson’s reprimand of Hemenway (no monetary sanctions)
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=783
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613272/27OrderFindingRule11Violation3242008
Orly could really use a proofreader.
According to her (with other media accounts), she gave documents to USSCCJ Roberts at the University of Idaho.
I thought quo warranto petitions could only be properly sent to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and/or the Attorney General? Is Ms. Taitz merely sending SCOTUS copies of those petitions for their info?
Nonotes:
The following link points to the SCOTUS docket for her original case:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
We’ll have to wait and see when they post it on the site.
-Phil
When will she find out if she will be placed on the docket? I thought Leo told her that this was not the way to go with the quo warranto? Well, it will be interesting.
Way to go Dr. Taitz….your persistence will pay off eventually…please don’t give up!!