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.


Chief Justice Agrees to Read Dr. Taitz’ Documentation; Update: Follow Up Posted

Dr. Orly Taitz has just filed the following report regarding her recent trip to Idaho. In it, she states that Chief Justice John Roberts told her the following:

Roberts stated  “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”.

Update: reports:

In somewhat related news, Orly Taitz, attorney for many of the individuals challenging President Obama’s qualifications, has been able to ask two U.S. Supreme Court Justices about her issue in the last week. On March 9 she was in the audience when Justice Antonin Scalia was speaking, and she asked him about it. He replied simply that it takes 4 justices for the Court to accept a case. On March 13 she was in the audience in Washington state when Chief Justice John Roberts was speaking, and she was able to ask him a question as well. See this story. She asserted that she has proof that Obama is not eligible. The Chief Justice replied that if she has such documents with her, she should hand them to a security officer, who presumably would then have later given them to the Chief Justice. The article does not say if Taitz had any papers with her at the time. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

The posting, in full…

Continue reading “Chief Justice Agrees to Read Dr. Taitz’ Documentation; Update: Follow Up Posted”

Lightfoot v. Bowen: Dr. Taitz Files Motion to Reconsider, Quo Warranto

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Lightfoot v. Bowen, reports this evening that she has filed a motion with the Supreme Court to reconsider her petition.

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.


Lightfoot v. Bowen: Application for Stay Denied; Other Case Info; Dr. Taitz to File for Writ

According to today’s Supreme Court Orders, Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, has been disposed of accordingly:



The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court is denied.

This case marks the last of the known cases being actively considered at the Supreme Court. It is possible, however, that certain other cases could be making their way to the high Court, including Mr. Stephen Pidgeon’s case, Broe v. Reed; this case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the Plaintiffs could file a subsequent petition if they so desired.

There are also currently two cases actively seeking a sponsoring attorney at the federal level — one requiring a formal petition for court (Ms. Cris Ericson’s Ericson v. Obama) and another having been dismissed in Florida but willing to go further (Mr. Spencer Connerat’s Connerat v. Browning).

Further, in Indiana, a currently pending lawsuit should see some activity by the end of the month — Ankeny v. Daniels. And Dr. Taitz is in the process of getting a military-Plaintiff-based lawsuit together (currently said to have 50 petitioners, one of whom is said to be a blood relative of the President) and filed.

There is also rumored to be a number of other actions occurring across America. These and other information can be found on my current listing of eligibility lawsuits, here.

Also, the Oklahoma State Legislature is coming into session where Rep. Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow) is one of a growing number of States offering initiatives to reform the electoral process.

Update: Dr. Taitz is planning on filing a petition for a writ of Certiorari:

For immediate press release
Dear fellow Americans and Patriots,
as you probably know, in my case Lightfoot v Bowen I filed a petition for emergency stay and asked it to be treated as a writ of certiorari based on Bush v Gore 2000 precedent. The Supreme Court has logged this petition as an application for stay pending filing a writ of certiorari. Since they denied the emergency petition today, it gives me an opportunity to file immediately the actual Writ of Certiorari and it will be done within a few days.


Updates: Lightfoot v. Bowen, Kerchner v. Obama, Ankeny v. Daniels, Gitmo in the Judiciary

According to, there will probably be no scheduled Orders issued at all today:

As of 1:30 p.m., the Court has issued no other orders on pending cases. It thus appears that the next release of orders will come next Monday.

There are still plenty of things to consider for you, dear readers, over this weekend. Let’s get started:

As always, check back here at The Right Side of Life for updates.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.


Berg v. Obama, Lightfoot v. Bowen, Brockhausen v. Andrade: Decisions and Hearings

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphases mine]

Regardless of what any Supreme Court Justice, President, Representative or Senator does or says, we see a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” guarantee that no law in America shall keep the concerned citizen from being able to petition a case in which they have reason to believe that the same government — tasked with upholding all tenets of this document — is overlooking even the smallest part thereof. In the case of the President-Elect’s eligibility, the question of his credentials is always an open one; if by no other grouping of citizens, then certainly by we, the People.

I have heard much opposition on this blog and many other places across the blogosphere and in the media (where it’s actually a consideration) that the mere questioning of a politician’s eligibility for the office of the presidency is met with rank disdain, in almost taboo fashion. I have to wonder: what’s the fear in asking questions? Is this not a classically liberal proposition? Are we not all to hold those who govern us accountable to — at the very least — the basic, fundamental document that is our highest law of the land? To wit…

We await judicial action on the following dates:

  • Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
  • Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
  • Friday, January 23: Dr. Orly Taitz‘ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.
    • The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received.

Other noteworthy links include the following:

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here; currently known State-based electoral reform initiatives can be found here.


Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment

Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in Lightfoot v. Bowen, today filed the following motion to declare that the President-Elect fails to qualify under Article 2, Section 1 and Amendment 20 (including Rule 21 (2)(B) and (4), as shown below) of the Constitution.

The relevant part of the 20th Amendment:

Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The motion in its entirety follows…

Continue readingLightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment”

Dr. Orly Taitz: Conversation with Fitzgerald, Commentary on Lightfoot v. Bowen, GA Military Case?

Dr. Orly Taitz, the spirited and unstoppable activist who is counsel for the Plaintiffs (one of whom is Gail Lightfoot, Libertarian vice presidential candidate) in Lightfoot v. Bowen, reportedly had a conversation with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Linda Starr shared the following commentary on Phil Berg’s web site (via the RovingPatrol blog):

“She called me this evening to give me reports on some interesting things I suggested to her when we spoke yesterday. She told me about her visit with Fitz. She said he seemed interested in what she had to say to him.

Based on several conversations I’ve had with different people, I’m feeling good. And nervous, but good nervous. SCOTUS has handled Phil’s case differently than anyone else’s case. Also, I remind you that Phil is the only one who was a former Deputy AG who prosecuted criminal cases. He looks at this case in ways a prosecutor looks at getting convictions. The other cases which came before the SCOTUS have all been thrown out quickly. Phil cited precedent setting cases that would give him standing.

I believe the SCOTUS will not punt this case. It’s too important to upholding our Constitution. It’s hard for me to believe they would allow the Constitution to be destroyed on their watch. Especially after 2000. It’s hard for me to believe they will ignore it just to put a Black man in office. It’s hard for me to believe they will punt this case because of fear of Blacks threatening to start race riots. We cannot submit to blackmail or threats. We can not allow this country to be held hostage by race. I think it is clearly obvious too many people in DC know Barry is not eligible, and that is why Biden & Clinton have not resigned their Senate seats. I think it is proof they believe the SCOTUS will handle this issue and deal with it. I think Howard Dean wanting to get out supports my beliefs.”

Dr. Taitz also went on to further comment about the state of her case at the Supreme Court…

Continue reading “Dr. Orly Taitz: Conversation with Fitzgerald, Commentary on Lightfoot v. Bowen, GA Military Case?”

Lightfoot v. Bowen: Distributed for January 23 Conference

The Supreme Court docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) for Dr. Orly Taitz’ (counsel representing) case of Lightfoot v. Bowen now shows the following:

Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

This now puts an eligibility case in front of the Supreme Court Justices for 3 weeks in a row:

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: See InvestigatingObama’s Orly interview.

Update: Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz’ presser isn’t completely true. In the release (in fact, the very title), she says:

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

That is incorrect. I hope what Dr. Taitz meant to say, instead, was the very next sentence…

He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court.

…thereby meaning that a Conference will decide whether or not the case will be heard.


Lightfoot v. Bowen: Submitted to the Chief Justice

Yesterday, one of Dr. Orly Taitz’ cases, Lightfoot v. Bowen, currently shows on the docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) that it has been refiled and submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts:

Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.

Dr. Taitz similarly posts this news; it is a follow up to a previous posting here.

Remember that she is essentially filing for an emergency stay of California Elector voting; it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant Certiorari, based on the following two reasons:

  1. Even though denying Certiorari does not set precedent, there does not appear to be anything especially different with this case versus other cases that have already been denied a writ;
  2. There is nothing unconstitutional, per se, about having the Electors in the Electoral College vote; therefore, the Supremes would be correct in allowing this aspect of the Legislative branch take place

However, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first Supreme Court case that involves actual Electors and candidates for the office of the vice presidency. While these two types of Plaintiffs could be construed as the differentiating factor, how likely is it that the Court will grant the writ when, to date, the Legislative process has not yet been exhausted, we don’t technically have a President-elect yet, and so therefore no actual harm has been committed in certifying an ineligible presidential candidate?

Obviously, we’ll see what happens.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.