U.S. Supreme Court: Brief Of Newly Discovered Evidence Filed In Obama Eligibility Case
U.S. Supreme Court: Supplemental Brief Of Newly
Discovered Evidence Filed In Obama Eligibility Case
As reported here Dr. Orly Taitz filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States for the Obama eligibility case Noonan v Bowen. It was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts on December 26th, 2012, and on January 9th, 2013, the petition was referred to the full court and distributed for conference scheduled for February 15, 2013. Below is the supplemental brief just filed:
EXCERPTS FROM FILED BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
Case at hand is scheduled to be heard on February 16, 2013 (15th) 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 and 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. [...]
#4 IN CONCLUSION:
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. [...]
FULL BRIEF CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124806553
Affidavit: DHS Special Agent Stephen Coffman; Obama Selective Service Registration Forged - DETAILS HERE.
Affidavit: Debt Collector Al Hendershot; Obama Using Harry Bounel's Social Security Number - DETAILS HERE.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
You didn't include the skullduggery going on with the treasonous actions of the Supreme Court clerks that Orly Taitz pointed out:
ReplyDeleteWHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE US 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
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.
This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the US Supreme Court. Previously Taitz's case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 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 US 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 US 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.
And now Orly Taitz has several articles on her website saying that Justice Roberts may have been blackmailed by Obama to support Obamacare, so there may not be much hope for justice in this case.