Accuracy in Media

This article originally appeared on examiner.com.

North Carolina’s Civitas Institute has revealed that the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Obama campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the internet in violation of state law. This has been confirmed through records requests filed with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The counting is not yet complete.

North Carolina does not allow online voting, but according to Civitas, SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website, Gottaregister.com, to use a web-based registration program. The SBE’s chief lawyer responded to the charge with a plainly disingenuous 1984-newspeak answer:

Wright repeatedly denied that the SBE allowed online voter registration, insisting that it was “web-based voter registration”[ii] instead, as if there could be a “web-based” process that wasn’t online.

The technology from Allpoint Voter Services uses remote-control pens to transmit “signatures” over the Internet, according to techpresident.com[iii]. After entering voter information in an online form, the citizen “signs” it with a stylus or a finger. The Allpoint technology records the signature and then transmits it to one of two autopens – one in California, the other in Nevada[iv]. One of the pens transcribes the signature on to a paper voter registration form. Allpoint then mails the documents to local election boards – or is supposed to, a point we’ll come back to.

To say this is not “online” registration but “web-based” is like saying a certain vehicle is not a car, it’s an automobile. The point of having a “wet signature” – one in ink – is to provide a universally accepted way proving that a prospective voter is affirming in person all the facts on the form. To have an auto pen inserted at one point in this long computerized process is a far different thing. Even the Obama campaign called it online voter registration. Because, no matter how you twist words around, that’s what it is.

According to Civitas, three years ago the state began exploring ways to get around North Carolina voting laws in order to allow online voting. Currently California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Nevada, Maryland, and New York allow some form of online voter registration. North Carolina and many other states do not. For obvious reasons, this method is fraught with vulnerabilities to fraud.

In August 2011, the SBE contacted an official from Verafirma, a company that, according to its website, is developing a “Democracy Project,” which “will pioneer the use of electronic signatures for politics.” Verafirma’s co-founder is Jude Barry, a Democrat partisan who began as a press aide for Teddy Kennedy and subsequently worked on campaigns for Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt, Howard Dean and Barack Obama. Barry also founded Catapult Strategies, a political consulting firm with extensive ties in Silicon Valley, and Allpoint Voter Services, the company used to provide electronic registration signatures for North Carolina voters.

Allpoint bragged about the use of its machines in the 2012 election, even acknowledging the Obama campaign’s activities in North Carolina:

President Obama’s re-election campaign and Rock the Vote have both used the new service from the five-person startup Allpoint Voter Services in Oakland, Calif. The Obama campaign made the service available through its GottaRegister.com Web site to voters in North Carolina, 10 other states and the District of Columbia. Campaign finance records show that the campaign spent almost $43,000 from August through last week to use the service. Allpoint provided the service to Rock the Vote for free so that they could prove that the model works and can scale, says company spokesman Jude Barry.

According to Civitas, the Obama campaign may have been paying Allpoint per registration, in violation of federal law. They also raise the possibility that Obama’s campaign may have been prioritizing registrations, accepting some electronically and requiring others to print and turn in their registrations by mail. Finally, county election officials reported that many of Allpoint’s registration forms appeared to have very similar signatures. George Gilbert, Board of Elections Director for Guilford County, NC, said Allpoint registrations were “immediately suspect.” While the Obama campaign couldn’t directly control party affiliation of registrants, 68 percent of the registrations were for Democratic voters and 21 percent were unaffiliated. Only 10 percent were Republican voters.

North Carolina is no stranger to voting problems. An ongoing study by Civitas Institute’s Myrick reported here, finds that 832 people over 112 voted by absentee ballot in 2012. Since there are only 330 people over 110 in the U.S. according to the 2010 census, this appears to be something of a record. 68.5 percent were democrats, (no surprise there), 27.5 percent republicans and 4 percent unaffiliated. A glitch causes ballots to default to January 1, 1900 when voters do not enter their birth date, which accounts for most of this. It is one of many problems with NC voter rolls, but according to Susan Myrick, they have not been allowed to correct these problems. As a result, the voter rolls are in a shambles and vulnerable to fraudulent votes.

As for the Obama administration, they have shown themselves over and over to be completely contemptuous of the law – from vote fraud to Fast-n-Furious; from Benghazi-gate to recess appointments and unconstitutional executive orders, the list is endless. As I described in a WorldNetDaily article last November, the Obama administration was willing to use whatever means at its disposal to win this election, legal and illegal. Up until now, my assumption has been that, while they plainly engaged in vote fraud in some circumstances, it wasn’t enough to throw the election. Depending upon whether or not they used tricks like this nationwide – and they probably did – they may have in fact stolen this election.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • What is going to happen, are these people going to tried and sent to jail for election fraud?

  • spartacus

    fraud ! , fraud !!!! , I don’t see no stinking fraud ! , are the burgers done yet ? barry ! forget the buns I’ll take twinkle , twinkle little star and a pickle ! ,pleaseeeeeeee !!!!!!! , jail ? no!! , we have a get out of jail free card ! and monopoly money ! tra la la la la !

  • Under the current administration….voter fraud does not exist …EXCEPT if any of the votes are for Republicans. He who controls the media and the voting system in America wins!!!!

  • Deaniebugs

    This is all very interesting but as we’ve learned, there is no consequence for crime in America, there is no accountability in America, there is no enforcement of law in America so what’s the purpose of your entire article???? Pointing out the obvious problem that no one will take care of??? Obama is not the first “Black” president, but he is the first teflon president.

  • jon henry

    earlier reports say Oblamo only won by 2.5% of the popular vote. I wonder how many of the ballots cast for our illustrious leader were in fact fraudulently cast by lying, cheating, sacks of crap? But in retrospect, he’s a lying cheating sack of . . . well you know the rest. I guess it all boils down to , Oblamo is the best America deserves.

  • Carle W Riley

    If I were to be shot by a 12gage shotgun, it would be impossible to determine which of the many pellets was the cause of death. The pellets as a whole would be named as the cause of death. In the case of widespread voting fraud, regardless of the form it takes, and where it takes place, the entire election result becomes suspect. Democracy itself has been assaulted with the equivalent of a 12 gage shotgun. The fraud is many faceted. If the patient dies, our Republic is done, and we can wave “Adios” to our Freedom. That’s ALL of our unalienable rights. There is not enough time to find and prove the fraud in the 2012 election to reverse anything, though it would help to find and prosecute anyone that participated in Voter Fraud. It is a big deal even if the crime is just voting twice. Patriots: It is Crucial that the 2016 election fully changes the balance of power in the Congress, I.e., retain the House, AND win back the Senate.

  • So, what are you, or anyone in the fraudulent UNITED STATES, INC going to do about it? Technically, the frauds are right that the don’t have to follow the United States Constitution – because they are following the laws of the UNITED STATES, INC, a foreign entity incorporated in the “District” of Columbia (a foreign nation).
    We can read all the b.s. blah, blah, voter fraud, blah, blah, violations of this amendment and that one, blah, blah. Until we take back our “sovereign States (Nations) and return the “Republic”, they can pretty much willy nilly do what they want, because the “Corporation” is running the show.

  • Anyone that has worked in government in D.C. knows this. Which means James Simpson is part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is evidenced by the fact that the D.C. gang of 514 will not act against the illegalities of what is going on. You will not see any D.C. political crimminals going to jail for their crimes. When do you suppose Bush will go to prison for violating the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Well, which Constitution was he, and Obama for that matter, swearing an oath to? What it the Consititution for the united States of America, or was it the Constitution for the UNITED STATES, INC?

    (USC 28 Section 3002, No. 15(a) “United States” means a Federal Corporation.) The United States was incorporated February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419, Chap. 62, 41st Congress, 3rd Session), the purpose being “an Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia, reorganized June 8th, 1878, (20 Stat. 102, Chapter 180, 45th Congress, 2nd Session) as “an Act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia” aka US Inc.

    Uniform Commercial Code, UCC9-307 (h) states “Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

    Hello, are you getting this? Look it up. Research it. Find out the reality of what is going on for yourself.

  • jackel

    The point is what is going to be done about the stolen election. Story after story (but little by the main stream press) but little action or interest by any key politicians! Do done of us really care anymore?

  • danstewart

    Even if you don’t consider the stolen elections, obummer is NOT a legal potus. Regardless of where he was born, his father was not a US citizen which makes obummer NOT elligible to be potus (not natural born, nothing to do with a c-section birth, as some idiots will say).

  • Please ! ! ! Get off this DEMOCRACY B=====s We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic…. Although the three branches of the government don’t like that idea because it diminishes their power and authority. ( The stuff they really had to begin with ) We need to take it back. Physically if necessary. SOON ! ! !

  • paulm39083

    you would have to live on Mars, or be incapacitated in the head, to NOT think that Obama and his minions did not steal this election.. to deny this is just plain stupid if you have any abilitity to think and to read… oops that eliminates a lot , but not enough to show that once again we have been scammed by the obama machine… when will it be enough folks.. where are the Repubicans ? Those in Washington know.. if they don’t they need counciling.. but what are they doing about it ?

  • Huapakechi

    Execution prevents recidivism.

  • Daniel F. Melton

    When did socialists become bulletproof?

  • Hank Friedman

    I must say that at one time I was a bit of a skeptic when it came to allegations of vote fraud. I considered it was us G.O.P. folks being sore losers. BUT This article just adds to:
    the claim about the Ohio Woman who may have voted up to 11 times.
    The astonishing claim that almost 60 precincts in Philly without one single Romney vote .
    I now agree with the closing paragraph of Mr.Simpson in that this past Presidential Election may very well have been stolen.

  • And what will happen if this is found to all be very true? NOTHING!

  • cowgirl20

    We must take over the Senate in mid-term elections in 2014, and we must retain the house. That will help, but nothing will be okay again until the imposter is out…..impeach the imposter!!

  • cowgirl20

    Don’t forget all of the fraud in Florida, where in one voting area, I believe it was 168% of registered voters turned out to vote, in another 148%, and 137% and 108% all in different voting areas, and that was just Florida. Ohio had huge voter fraud and so did PA, and I believe they found some in VA. How in the world can you say you were skeptical about voter fraud? We KNOW darned good and well that obozo stole this election, just like he did the first one. At least you are seeing daylight about it now. I just hope the imposter gets impeached!!

  • focusthis

    I’m sure this happened in all 50 states. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much corruption in the White House and with everyone of his cabinet. They are all bought and paid for to join in his socialist scheme to ruin the United States and further his agenda of socialism.

  • focusthis

    Oblamo is not even a US citizen and should never have been president. His false birth certificate, social service registration, social security number are all proof he has lied from day one to get in and these socialists helped him do it. This country has gone to hell in a handbasket and the sheeple will still follow their lying leader.

  • focusthis

    They are bought off to keep his secrets.

  • pissed

    The communists appear to be winning, and win they will at ANY cost.

  • focusthis

    It isn’t possible to impeach someone that was never legal in the first place. If the supreme court would do their job they would oust him ASAP.

  • tired of BS

    We just need to tAke our country back

  • Let’s just get back to paper form, which is a no Brainer

  • gobnait

    Does this come as a surprise to anyone? Didn’t see how it was possible for Obama to win without voter fraud- in either election.

  • semus

    While they’re at it does anyone want to look into these other trivial matters.

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/22-signs-that-voter-fraud-is-wildly-out-of-control-and-the-election-was-a-sham

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/did-obama-steal-the-2012-election/

    I mean after all the election is over right. Seriously though, why is it I think we’re
    going to find “little” things like this all over the country. All I can
    say is if this is allowed to stand unquestioned the Republic is gone and we’re going to fall if not sooner than later. Why’s Obama buying all these bullets?

  • A criminal nation with no Law and Order —Where’s Congress?

  • nitropoppa99

    Anyone who knows their history knows that the criminal aka Ronald Reagan was the first “teflon president”. He committed or participated in so many crimes during his reign and never was convicted of anything. So go cry in your beer. This article is a bunch of b.s.

  • Sikntyrd2012

    Obama is the first black fraudulent president. I dont doubt that millions voted for him in 2008, but i still believe that he wouldnt have won the elections then if not because of fraudulent votes.

  • Sikntyrd2012

    All the evidence should be brought to court to remove the restrictions that were placed on the GOP to contest anything- as they have explained to us, which does not make any sense to me. The Supreme Court should use their legal authority to stop this nonsense. Who would have the balls to take this matter to the highest court in the land and have them rule for all states to follow the law.

  • Sikntyrd2012

    What did Bush do that he should go to prison for? I never heard of anything he had done to violate his oath of office!

  • Texas

    What a crock of schize.

  • so are you saying that people who are disabled are to be denied the Privilage to vpte because they cant get to a polling place? Because if you are YOU ARE WRONG!!! THe disabled Vets will really be upset!!

  • If this is prosecuted. These 501 TAXPAYER FUNDED groups NEEDS to lose their statics & REPAY ALL the money given to them! These GROUPS need PUNISHED so they stop STEALING the LEGAL VOTERS vote! I”M REALLY SICK of 3rd world tactics! Print this article & keep on file. We will hear their is no fraud again! Also take a lesson from the article to PUSH FOR STRICKER LAWS not easier to vote laws! It is not a RIGHT it is a privilege! An attorney or some1 studying law, told me their is nothing in the constitution giving someone a right to vote. ALSO, don’t be afraid to go against their though. I’m pushing everytime i can. IF you take a FREEBIE from the Gov’t that is your vote & you give up your vote at the poll! Maybe some able body people would start being more responsible so they could vote! DEMOCRATS have formed a group to push for Federal Voter Laws! They call it National! Don’t go for that one, look how immigration turned out! Full CORRUPTION

  • I though absentee ballots were only for the businessmen out of town or district they vote & could prove it. Along with incapable physically & they had to prove it?

  • Why isn’t Congress starting the process on so many issues, not just the voter fraud…I am afraid it is going to take the American People to rise up and just take our government back, its all corrupt!

  • medicinewomantwo

    What the same vets who get absentee ballots or the ones we carry to the polling places?

  • medicinewomantwo

    Correction 57 states.

  • We the People could have told you that as soon as the results of the election vote was in. Duh!!!!!

  • Shawn Woolard

    Pretty interesting article! Thanks for sharing James!

    SurveyAndBallotSystems.com

  • yea, the jews-they control both parties, the own the media and congress is so intimidated by them they won’t admit that they are for fear of losing their job- look into that “Accuracy in Media” LMAO!

  • gawxxx

    ah ! duh ! , what a fool !

  • gawxxx

    proof ?

  • ZaMan

    @Klansman Cowgirl! Thanks for proving what I’ve been saying for the past five years You are a racist azzhole sore loser! Get this through your thick, retarded head! there is NO evidence of voter fraud, but there IS evidence of you being a racist sore loser!. Some Republicans tried to say that voter fraud was the reason Obama won, but independent investigations did not find any proof. (The myth that ACORN “stole” the election was also debunked.)

    The Republicans didn’t want to stand in the long lines caused by the voter suppression tactics by the Right. They basically shot themselves in the foot as Democrats turned out, waited hours to vote and didn’t complain about it. Also all the states you mention have Republican Governors. Don’t you think they would be the first to say there was fraud at the polls? You can’t get your facts from Fox News and expect to be well informed.

    Obama won fair and square! DEAL WITH IT RACIST!

  • cowgirl20

    ZaMan, get your head out of obozos behind and smarten up. YOU are part of what is wrong with America.

  • chocopot

    There is a great deal of documentation proving massive voter fraud not only in 2012, but in 2008 as well. The liar/fraud/poseur in the WH did not win either election. My only question is why no one is doing anything about it.

  • chocopot

    You’re an idiot and a fool.

  • Sandy

    “…..contemptuous of the law, …..Benghazigate…unconstitutional executive orders..” The list is long..refer to this article…And no judicial steps have been taken!?! WHY NOT!!!

  • Focusthis, The Supreme Court has been corrupted by some of the staff. See: http://www.OrlyTaitzesq.com

    HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE

    February 19, 2013 by Orly taitz

    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices in regards to Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425. We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere.

    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

    Press release: clerks of the
    Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.
    Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

    Law offices of orly taitz
    29839 santa margarita ste 100
    Rancho santa margarita ca 92688
    ph. 949-683-5411
    fax 949-766-7603

    orly.taitz@gmail.com
    orlytaitzesq.com
    02.16.2013

    Via Federal Express

    Attn. Congressman Bob
    Goodlatte

    Chairman of the Committee on
    Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
    WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
    2309 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-5431
    Fax: (202) 225-9681

    PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
    INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

    EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO CUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

    02.16.2013.

    Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

    On 12.11. 2013 Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed
    an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

    On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

    Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back, as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

    Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin. She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

    The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

    Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2). Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 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, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-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:
    A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.

    Obama is using a 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 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.

    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.

    (a)An individual—

    (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.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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 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 of the SSA. 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 A-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.

    Conclusion:
    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

    Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

    Respectfully submitted
    /s/ Dr. Orly
    Taitz ESQ

  • HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE

    February 19, 2013 by Orly taitz

    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices in regards to Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425. We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere.

    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

    Press release: clerks of the
    Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.
    Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

    Law offices of orly taitz
    29839 santa margarita ste 100
    Rancho santa margarita ca 92688
    ph. 949-683-5411
    fax 949-766-7603

    orly.taitz@gmail.com
    orlytaitzesq.com
    02.16.2013

    Via Federal Express

    Attn. Congressman Bob
    Goodlatte

    Chairman of the Committee on
    Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
    WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
    2309 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-5431
    Fax: (202) 225-9681

    PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
    INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

    EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO CUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

    02.16.2013.

    Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

    On 12.11. 2013 Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed
    an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

    On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

    Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back, as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

    Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin. She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

    The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

    Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2). Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 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, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-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:
    A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.

    Obama is using a 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 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.

    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 onWhitehouse.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.

    (a)An individual—

    (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.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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 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 of the SSA. 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 A-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.

    Conclusion:
    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

    Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

    Respectfully submitted
    /s/ Dr. Orly
    Taitz ESQ

  • HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE

    February 19, 2013 by Orly taitz

    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices in regards to Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425. We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere.

    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

    Press release: clerks of the
    Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.
    Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

    Law offices of orly taitz
    29839 santa margarita ste 100
    Rancho santa margarita ca 92688
    ph. 949-683-5411
    fax 949-766-7603

    orly.taitz@gmail.com
    orlytaitzesq.com
    02.16.2013

    Via Federal Express

    Attn. Congressman Bob
    Goodlatte

    Chairman of the Committee on
    Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
    WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
    2309 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-5431
    Fax: (202) 225-9681

    PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
    INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

    EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO CUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

    02.16.2013.

    Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

    On 12.11. 2013 Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed
    an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

    On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

    Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back, as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

    Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin. She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

    The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

    Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2). Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 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, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-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:
    A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.

    Obama is using a 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 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.

    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 onWhitehouse.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.

    (a)An individual—

    (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.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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 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 of the SSA. 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 A-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.

    Conclusion:
    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

    Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

    Respectfully submitted
    /s/ Dr. Orly
    Taitz ESQ

  • HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE

    February 19, 2013 by Orly taitz

    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices in regards to Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425. We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere.

    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

    Press release: clerks of the
    Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.
    Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

    Law offices of orly taitz
    29839 santa margarita ste 100
    Rancho santa margarita ca 92688
    ph. 949-683-5411
    fax 949-766-7603

    orly.taitz@gmail.com
    orlytaitzesq.com
    02.16.2013

    Via Federal Express

    Attn. Congressman Bob
    Goodlatte

    Chairman of the Committee on
    Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
    WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
    2309 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-5431
    Fax: (202) 225-9681

    PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
    INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

    EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO CUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

    02.16.2013.

    Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

    On 12.11. 2013 Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed
    an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

    On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

    Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back, as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

    Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin. She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

    The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

    Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2). Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 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, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-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:
    A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.

    Obama is using a 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 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.

    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 onWhitehouse.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.

    (a)An individual—

    (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.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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 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 of the SSA. 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 A-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.

    Conclusion:
    Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

    Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

    Respectfully submitted
    /s/ Dr. Orly
    Taitz ESQ