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.