Orly Taitz letter to Chief Justice Roberts (3-26)

March 28, 2009

Orly Taitz’s follow up letter to Chief Justice Roberts after ambushing him at University of Idaho on March 13th. [See links after her letter.] I wish someone would proofread it for her. He should at least receive a greeting and a thank you for accepting her question and her papers when he was under no obligation to do so. And the facts should be presented neutrally and for sure no ultimatum should be given before he has a chance to respond. He is the highest Justice in the land and should be afforded the respect his position demands – no matter the frustration.

How is this helping?

Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly  heard in conference five times.

Now is not the time to blow it. A simple status cover letter and then a listing of the facts on a separate sheet would have been better. I know the facts, and this was overwhelming, disjointed and in your face. A lawyer, if nothing else, has to build his/her case logically, and in order to believe the case, Justice Roberts first has to believe the person presenting it.

His first impression reading this is not going to entice him to read more. There have to be citizens willing to proofread the letter and respond immediately with an edited version. Please use them.

Anyone over at Defend our Freedoms Foundation – now is the time to be professional and patient. Yes, it has been frustrating, and it’s hard to believe people still think this is a joke or vendetta or a bunch of crazy sore losers – but you have his attention. Give him some time to review everything. Eric Holder just got sworn in. The truth is coming – please give it time and please be courteous. Justice Roberts was caught on tape saying he would review it – he can’t back down. And in case anyone needs reminding, men in positions of power are not too fond of women getting in their faces.

Letter is as written – spacing added.

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Counsel for the Petitioners in Lightfoot v Bowen
Counsel for the Petitioners in Easterling et al v Obama et al

Chief Justice John J. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States

This is to remind you that on 03.13.09. I have presented you with the motion for reconsideration in Lightfoot v Bowen, Quo Warranto in Easterling et al v Obama et al and a 164 page dossier  of suspected illegal and criminal activity surrounding Mr. Obama and his supporters, that was written on 03.01.09 and sent on Attorney general Holder on 03.03.09.  In front of 1200 students and faculty of the University of Moscow, Idaho you agreed to review those documents. This is a matter of National Security and National urgency and as of yet there was no response from you or Attorney General Holder, nor Robert Mueller, Director of FBI, that was copied on this dossier.

On 03.25.09. I arrived to the Washington DC and personally had delivered copies of the above documents to both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. I have received a letter from your clerk William K Suter, that relates to the pleadings received on the 23rd and does not mention any documents submitted on the 13th, and I am not sure you are aware of this letter, as you didn’t seem to be aware of other matters in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Suter stated, that Quo Warranto and Writ of Mandamus don’t comply with the rules and I can file  a petition for exraordinary writ of MANDAMUS, and I have to file it with the court. He didn’t specify what rules he is talking about and this statement seems to be incorrect, since I have filed Quo Warranto as an original jurisdiction case, which doesn’t need to be in the form of extraordinary writ of Mandamus.

Mr. Suter also stated that the Rules of this Court make no provision for the Motion for Reconsideration of an application, however the rules of this court make no provision for many other out of the ordinary acts, that happened on your watch, including and not limited to:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court meeting behind close doors with Obama, who is a person of interest and subject of litigation of my petition, that was scheduled to be heard only a few days later.

2. Any mention of my case, stating that Mr. Obama is ineligible for US presidency, being erased from the External docket of the Supreme Court right after the inauguration and two days before the case was supposed to be heard.

3. Your clerks lying to the citizens and defaming me by claiming that the above events didn’t happen, even though hundreds of citizens saw it and are prepared to testify in court in regards to such events.

4. Clerk Danny Bickel on his own accord refusing to file one of two supplemental briefs I’ve submitted.

5. Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly  heard in conference five times.

6. Supreme Court Justice getting all of this information and doing nothing about, while under an obligation to act and correct the wrong.

7. Supreme Court Justices getting information in regarding to criminal activity and not reporting it for further investigation by law enforcement.

8. Supreme Court Justices deciding  not to hear on the merits any and all cases in regards to president’s ineligibility, while finding more value in a case deling with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco. It appears the right of a few trial lawyers to make millions of dollars of such litigation was more important then the right of 305 million Americans to have a legitimate president.

9. Yesterday, on 03.25.09. I was able to meet with the National Selective Service Director, Mr. Chatfield, who could not explain any inconsistencies and suspected signs of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate presented to the public by Mr. Obama. For example, according to the retired federal agent Coffman, the serial number of the certificate on the top shows first two numbers to be 08, meaning it was created in 2008, while on the bottom an extra 8 was added, to make it look like it was created in 1980.  Similarly, National Director was clueless and provided no explanation to the wrong seal, wrong dates and wrong form number.

9. Recently I have read the book “Making your Case”, that Justice Scalia autographed for me.  On page 77 it states ” Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that the 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 selection of particular briefs) by law clerks’. When you have unscrupulous clerks and the issue is National Security this is inconceivable.

One of old maxims in legal practice, is that the substance trumps form. The substance dictates, that under such conditions, it is your obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and to issue a stay to Mr. Obama’s functioning in the capacity of the president and commander in Chief and give him a reasonable time of 24 hours or 48 hours to present all of his vital records or sign a consent for release of such records. If he is not willing to do so, then per the 20th amendment, Mr. Biden becomes a temporary president for two or three months, until a new president and be chosen in a special election.

Justice Roberts, if you are unwilling to do so, it is your constitutional and moral duty to resign and let another Justice uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted. and is being hand delivered on my way to the airport, flying back to California,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners.
***

(3-28) Updated list of Orly Taitz posts
(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on Taitz – Justice Roberts interaction
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-21) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (video)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 13th)
(3-24) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)
(3-3) Taitz: Pre-Litigation Quo Warranto Letter to Atty Gen Holder
(3-6) Orly Taitz’s military & office holding plaintiffs
(3-25) Orly Taitz: Documents present and accounted for at DOJ & SCOTUS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s