|Users Online Now: 2,826 (Who's On?)||Visitors Today: 1,385,642|
|Pageviews Today: 1,843,349||Threads Today: 343||Posts Today: 7,058|
[color=blue]Read this you will believe: He's going to jail with all the others in congress involed!!!![/color]
User ID: 34035915
02/09/2013 11:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
[color=blue]Read this you will believe: He's going to jail with all the others in congress involed!!!![/color]
A long read but worth it!!! You will be amazed: Please help this women anyway you can she is working on this very hard.
Supplemental brief for the Supreme Court of the United States
Posted on | February 9, 2013 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOONAN ET AL V BOWEN
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Ph.49-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603
Case at hand is scheduled to be heard on February 16, 2013 in a conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and Keith Judd against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Article 2, section 1, §5. The declaration of the candidate aqnd the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security number 042-68-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (official certificate of nomination of a candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. constitution” were removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.
Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and experts showing that Barack Obama is:
1.A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Assisi school in Jakarta Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
2.Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for removal as listed in the passport, is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot not serve as a U.S. president as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
3.Obama does not have a valid U. S birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document. Registrar of the State of Hawaii and Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.
Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special investigations unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged selective service registration is a forgery.
Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the special investigations of the US Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged application for the selective service is a forgery. According to 5 USC § 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the selective service.
(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and
(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,
shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.
As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the selective service. a forgery does not represent a registration, as such Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. he is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.
1.4. Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number 042-68-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.
315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES
Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that 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 the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”
Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court. Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an oath of allegiance and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.
This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen 084524 by the same attorney Taitz was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public, media, state representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is high treason, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.
In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as
Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an
application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same
employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone that there is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.
Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance. Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.
JUSTICES SOTOMAYOR AND KAGAN SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should recuse themselves from this consideration due to the fact that they are appointees of Barack Obama and if the court rules that he was not eligible for office, their very nomination becomes questionable, as such their opinion might be biased.
ACTIONS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEYS, AGS AND JUDGES DURING OBAMA REGIME ARE AKIN TO ACTIONS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIARY IN NAZI GERMANY FROM 1932 TILL 1932, AND IF NOT CHANGED WILL LEAD TO THE PATTERN OF NAZI GERMANY FROM 1942-1945.
What is the most troubling is not that a criminal with forged IDs like Obama was able to get in the White House, but the magnitude of corruption, lawlessness, criminality and flagrant treason in the top positions of power in the U.S. Government and judiciary, as well as regime controlled media. This brief is not only a statement of facts, but also a warning that if members of the judiciary do not clean up their act, do not stop being criminality complicit with our Criminal in Chief, this country will descend to the levels of NAZI Germany in 1940s.
The similarity to NAZI Germany is startling. In 1932 when Hitler came to power there were thousands of highly educated judges in Germany, graduates of the world renown universities of Heidelberg and Berlin, Germany had a Constitution. However, either out of fear or due to corruption being bought and paid for, those judges simply ignored the Constitution and looked the other way when thousands were denied their Constitutional rights, when later they were deprived of their property and any economic rights and ultimately deprived of liberty and life itself. It is startling that out of thousands of judges not one single judge rose to declare Hitler’s actions to be unconstitutional. If only one judge in Germany in 1932-1945 were to show one drop of honesty, integrity and adherence to the German Constitution and were to issue a declaratory relief ruling Hitler’s actions to be unconstitutional, possibly the lives 65 million people around the World could have been spared.
Similarly, in the past four years of Obama regime in spite of hundreds of pages of sworn affidavits of top law enforcement officials and experts, not one judge showed the integrity of character, honesty and decency to rise against a foreign national with forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number usurping the U.S. Presidency.
From 2008, when Obama first got “elected” judges claimed that it was too late to challenge him, that the challenge needs to be brought during the next election. During the 2012 Primary judges claimed that it is too early, that plaintiffs need to wait for Obama to be nominated by the nominating convention. After the nominating convention judges either dismissed cases without explanation, as it was done by the Supreme Court of California in the case at hand or came up with some bogus excuses. One of the excuses was that Obama is a President and it is up to Congress to impeach him.
First, this case and a number of other cases were brought before Obama was sworn in in 2013, so he needs to be treated as an individual, candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Moreover, Obama never really qualified for the impeachment. In order to be eligible for the impeachment one has to be a legitimate U.S. President ab initio. In Obama’s case he was never a legitimate candidate.
In his book “active Liberty, interpreting the U.S. constitution” Justice Breyer described his visit of the former Soviet Union and his attempts to teach Russian judges that Democracy and independent judiciary are possible, that it does not have to be a “telephone Justice” when the ruling regime tells judges what to do and how to rule. Based on the behavior of the U.S. judges during the Obama regime, it is clear that Justice Breyer did not teach the Russian judges democracy and the independence of the judiciary but it is the other way around, the Russian judges taught American counterparts some telephone justice akin to the “judges letters” sent to judges during the NAZI regime.
Let us not forget another peculiar fact: two political figures who have hidden their IDs or engaged in some falsification of their IDs were Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Stalin falsified his date of birth in order to either cover up the illegitimacy of his birth or prior service as a double agent with “Ohranka”, being a hired thug for both the bolshevics and the special services of the Szar. Hitler ordered the building containing his birth records to be demolished. Possibly it was done due to persistent rumors that his illegitimate father was an offspring from an out of wedlock relationship of his grandmother with a Jewish man. This did not mash with Hitler’s policy of extermination of Jews. Regardless of reasons, people who hide the circumstances of their birth who use forged IDs are inherently dangerous as no one knows who they are, what is their allegiance and end goals. What is most important is that corruption of the Judiciary leads to disastrous results. The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. The longest serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America John Marshall stated in Cohens v Virginia (1821) “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” The case at hand is the most important case of the violation of the U.S. constitution and it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret it and rule. Moreover, in Fletcher v Peck (1810) the same Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court found for the first time a state law to be unconstitutional. In Fletcher the Supreme Court found a state law built on bribery to be unconstitutional. Similarly, in the case at hand certification of a candidate for president built on fraud, forgery, Social Security fraud, selective Service fraud and identity theft is unconstitutional as well.
It is time, it is high time for the Supreme Court of the United States to act, to assume the jurisdiction, as not doing so will be treason to the constitution. It is time to act and rule that the certification of the electoral votes for a Presidential candidate, which were obtained based on fraud, use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number as a basis for the proof of identity and Natural born status, is indeed unconstitutional and null and void. The Supreme Court of the United States has therefore the power and the duty to advise the Supreme Court of the State of California that it erred in its decision and that indeed certification of votes for candidate Obama was unconstitutional and null and void.
It is the Constitutional duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to advise both the U.S. Congress and the Legislatures of each and every states of the same, so that the U.S. congress can follow the provisions of the XXs amendment “…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 nor a Vice President elect shall qualified, declaring who shall then act as president, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected”. Since Obama’s eligibility is based on forged and stolen IDs, he never qualified and can never qualify as a natural born U.S. citizen status cannot be acquired retroactively. Since Obama never qualified, his selection of the Vice Presidential candidate was not constitutional either, the whole ticket was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs believe that the most Democratic way of selecting a qualified President is a new election, a special election. It is true that there was never a special election for the U.S. President, however there were multiple special elections for the U.S. Representatives, senators and state governors. Moreover, there is always a first. It appears that ObamaForgeryGate will lead to a first special election for the U.S. President. However, ultimately based on the XXth amendment it will be the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress to decide in which manner the next president to be chosen upon removal from office of one usurping the position by fraud and forgery. At the moment the most important task is for the U.S. Supreme court to exercise its’ jurisdiction and issue an opinion declaring Barack Obama to be constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency due to identity fraud and use of forged and stolen IDs as a basis of establishing his identity and eligibility.
1. Supplemental brief and attached sworn affidavits of Chief investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Court guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman provided an undeniable evidence that Candidate Barack Obama was never eligible to be employed anywhere in the executive branch of the U.S. government; not as a President in the White House and not as a janitor in the White House as he used a laughable flagrant forgery claiming it to be a genuine Selective Service registration created in 1980. For this reason alone the Supreme Court of the United States should either grant the application or remand the case at hand back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration. Moreover, based on this evidence the Supreme Court of the United States should appoint a special prosecutor similar to Archibald Cox in Watergate and Kenneth Starr in MonicaLewinskyGate to investigate and prosecute the criminal aspects of the Selective service Fraud, Identity theft/fraud, elections fraud and usurpation of the presidency by Obama on ObamaForgeryGate.
2. Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.
3. Due to the fact that this is the most important case of National Security and due to the fact that justices of the Supreme Court were clueless about other cases brought before them and supposedly discussed in conference and due to the fact that on prior occasions clerks of the court and other employees of the Supreme Court have hidden cases from the justices, there have to be the actual signatures of the justices showing that they actually read the case, that it was not ruled upon by the employees of the court who have hidden the case from the justices and simply printed an order.
4. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should recuse themselves from this consideration due to the fact that they are appointees of Barack Obama and if the court rules that he was not eligible for office, their very nomination becomes questionable, as such their opinion might be biased.
5. Supreme Court should exercise its’ jurisdiction and issue a ruling on Obama ‘s eligibility based on all the evidence presented.
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the plaintiffs
User ID: 12680882
02/09/2013 11:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation