More “Clerical Errors” at the Supreme Court of the United States (Open Thread)

© Miri WTPOTUS December 10, 2012

injustice - Copy

Attorney Orly Taitz has written a letter to Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of  the United States (SCOTUS) William Sutter and to Mr. Eric Fossum, a SCOTUS employee.  Her letter is in response to a letter from Sutter, signed by Fossum, which she says incorrectly stated that Taitz never tried to file a writ of certiorari in the case  Taitz v Astrue (USCA DC 11-5304), which challenges the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be president of the United States.   With her letter, Taitz included proof, in the form of Federal Express receipts, that her filings were sent to the SCOTUS in two packages, both received at the SCOTUS and signed for by presumed SCOTUS employees:  J. Kouros and D. Gamble.  One package was received Oct. 2 and the other was received Oct. 9, 2012.  Taitz explains: [emphasis added]

On December 6, 2012 around 10:45 am plaintiff Taitz called SCOTUS and demanded to talk to Chief Clerk Sutter in regards to her grievance of wrongful denial of her right for redress of grievances. Assistant for Chief Clerk Sutter stated that he is not available and advised Taitz to talk to a different case analyst, Mr. Traves. Mr. Traves reviewed the computer file of the case and stated that he can see on his internal docket documents filed on October 1, received on October 2, 2012, he can see and can read a letter from Chief Clerk Sutter, which incorrectly stated that Plaintiff is out of time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Plaintiff was actually over a month early as the final decision was on August 8 and she had 90 days until November 7, 2012), however analyst Traves could not see on the electronic docket a  package  received by the court on October 9, 2012 and signed by D. Gamble.

It appears that there is nefarious activity in the court and someone threw the package away and either never docketed that package or deleted a docket entry made earlier.

In her post, Attorney Taitz documents other conveniently “coincidental” alleged clerical errors at the SCOTUS, which prevented Obama ineligibility cases from reaching the Justices.

There’s the case Lightfoot v. Bowen (08A524), which Taitz says was deleted from the SCOTUS docket on Obama’s inauguration day; she alleges that Clerk Danny Bickell explained away the deletion as a computer malfunction.

In Rhodes v MacDonald (10A56), a bogus entry was allegedly made on the SCOTUS docket, claiming that a stay in the case was denied by Justice Clarence Thomas, although a subsequent investigation by Taitz allegedly elicited an admission from the aforementioned Fossum that Justice Thomas’s signature is not on the paperwork.

Taitz’s current case challenges Obama’s Social Security number, the authenticity of which has been called into question. Specifically, Taitz writes to Sutter and Fossum:

Current case deals with undeniable evidence showing Barack Obama using a stolen Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to e-verify and SSNVS. Exhibits 4, 5, 6, showing Barack Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns and SSNVS and E-Verify reports showing that this number was never assigned to Barack Obama.

Conveniently a package with documents relating to the case of the biggest fraud and forgery and treason in the U.S. history disappears from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Plaintiff Taitz demands reconsideration of her 60 (a) motion to correct an error by the Clerk of the Court and a 60 day extension to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which was wrongfully denied earlier.

If such extension is not received within three business days, Plaintiff will be filing not a 60 (a) motion, but a 60 (b) motion with the Court seeking a  reconsideration not due to error but due to fraud.

Whatever a person’s politics, surely we all ought to be able to agree that every citizen should receive a fair hearing of grievances, especially because We the People have constitutional rights to due process and to petition our government for redress of grievances.

There are inconvenient truths and there are also convenient coincidences. How many “clerical errors” should be allowed at the Supreme Court, all seemingly centered around cases that involve Obama’s self-evident ineligibility? (See here.)

If this is not a coincidence, meaning that this is business as usual at the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then (if these “mistakes” happened) surely these are the most inept of public employees and We the People deserve an explanation for WHY so many incompetents work there, in the most powerful court on the face of God’s green Earth!

To our obot friends, I would say this:  How many convenient coincidences are YOU willing to swallow?  Have you had enough YET?  Do you believe in fairness and due process?  Do you believe in JUSTICE for all or just for those with whom you agree?

Do you believe that EVERY citizen, every issue, deserves a day in court?  You have to ask yourselves: Why do these convenient coincidences, these convenient “clerical errors”, unfailingly seem to favor Obama and allow him to continue to hide the truth about his ineligibility?

To quote Obama himself:

The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth ARE PEOPLE WITH SOMETHING TO HIDE!

In those quiet moments, perhaps when you lie awake in bed at night, do you EVER wonder why Obama fights tooth and nail to keep from disclosing the truth?

If you truly believe that he’s eligible, then do you EVER wonder why he won’t simply prove it by presenting the courts with the EVIDENCE?

Instead, he allows this waste of taxpayer money to go on and on and on.

Do you NEVER suspect that he doesn’t provide the documents because (1) he can’t because they would prove his ineligibility or (2) he can’t because what he’s already shown is bogus and to present it to a court, alleging it to be true, would be a crime?

Or do you simply NOT CARE that he’s ineligible?  So long as he can get away with breaking the law and the tenets of the Constitution, then that’s just all right with you?

In 2009, Obama took the oath of office twice, allegedly because he conveniently and coincidentally flubbed the words.  He had a second, secret ceremony with Justice Roberts.  No video made and only an “official” photo released by the White House

Now, in 2013, AGAIN with the two ceremonies!  One secret, no press allowed, no video allowed, no audio allowed, and only an official photo to be released.

That is, unless the astounded media get their way and, under pressure, Obama decides to open the ceremony to the media, which I seriously doubt will happen.

So here’s another question for the true believers:   Why is Obama shutting the media as well as the public out of another oath of office?  Can you think of any reason why?

This most transparent of presidents plans to exclude the media and the people from the oath of office he takes on January 20, which will be the “official” oath.  WHY?

The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.

122 responses to “More “Clerical Errors” at the Supreme Court of the United States (Open Thread)

    • And they laugh as if it’s funny. “INFESTATION OF CORRUPT PEOPLE” who want to “dismantle” Barry’s mandate. INFESTATION. What do you do with infestations? You exterminate. This is not funny. This is symbolic code and those who listen should HEAR. Who is that STUPID, stupid white woman who sits there and says nothing and only laughs (perhaps) uncomfortably? Imagine Karl Rove suggesting that GWB should have, like a third world dictator, because that was the only option left to him, put his opposition in jail!

  1. Talk about Coincidences just how many can they have before they wakeup to the fact that this man and his entourage of minions is out to fight this at any cost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s