Cybercrime at the Supreme Court

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz notified Obama Conspiracy Theories this afternoon of this press release, sent to 26,000 news outlets, the US Congress, Senate, state legislatures, state attorney generals, US district attorneys and state governors. I’m getting tired just typing the list.

Dr. Taitz continues in her attempts to undermine popular support for American institutions, destabilize American society, and bring about political disruption and crisis with this fanciful tale woven as an alternative explanation for why all the “M” “A” (application) type entries on the Supreme Court docket public access system were unavailable for a couple of days. Clearly her suggestion that the Supreme Court’s deliberation process is “illegal” is not designed to further her cases at the Supreme Court, but rather to attack the Constitution itself.

Regarding Illegal activity in the Supreme Court of the United States, demand for immediate criminal investigation of suspected forgery of court records, tempering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related crimes.

Dear Mr. Holder, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Sullivan

As I have reported previously my Case Lightfoot v Bowen was erased from the exterior docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro’s (Obama/Soetoro’s) inauguration and only two days before the case was supposed to be heard in the full conference of all 9 Justices. After phone calls of hundreds of outraged citizens the case was reentered on the docket in the evening of January 22, right before it was supposed to be heard in the morning of January 23. In my case I stated that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro is ineligible for presidency due to the fact that the President and Commander in chief has to be a Natural born citizen: born to two US citizen parents on US soil. Obama’s father was here on a student visa, never a US citizen and for that reason alone he didn’t qualify, aside from that there is no evidence of any birthing  file in any hospital in Hawaii, Obama sealed all his vital records and his school registration in Indonesia show him as a citizen of Indonesia.

On March the 9th I saw Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia at the book signing ceremony and while he was signing two books that I purchased, I asked him, why my case wasn’t forwarded to the next step: oral argument on the merits. Justice Scalia had absolutely no knowledge of this case. I proceeded asking him about other similar cases, all claiming the same thing, that Obama is not eligible for presidency: Wrotnowski, Donofrio, Berg. In presence of several attorneys, law students and secret service agents justice Scalia kept saying that he didn’t know anything about those cases, even though all of the plaintiffs have received notification that all of these cases were reviewed by all 9 Justices in the conferenced and all of their petitions were denied.

This is particularly troubling due to the fact that according to the docket, Justice Scalia was the one that received Wrotnowski and Berg cases initially (Berg’s case was reviewed twice Certiorari and Injunction), he was the one that supposedly read those cases and forwarded them to the conference of all 9 Justices.

Additionally all 9 Justices received a World Net Daily news paper petition signed by around 350,000 American Citizens, 60,000  form letters sent by World Net Daily and estimated 100,000 individual letters, all urging the Justices to review all these cases dealing with Obama’s lack of legitimacy for presidency. How could the justices get half a million letters from citizens, read 5 lengthy briefs, sit through 5 conferences where each of 9 justices provides his opinion and vote and not know anything about the cases?

There are only 3 possibilities that I would like investigated:

1. I believe that the most likely reason is that there was tempering with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the Justices never saw those briefs.

I demand immediate investigation of what has happened with the docket. Did somebody from outside brake and enter into the computer system of the Supreme Court or was it done by one of the overzealous employees who wanted to keep Obama in the white House no matter what. Each employee is supposed to have an ID for log in and there is supposed to be a record of log ins. I demand to see a record of log ins in relation to my case Lightfoot v Bowen. When a Justice reads a petition, and decides to forwarded to the conference of the full Supreme court, there has to be a decision, signed by a specific judge, stating that he read the petition, finds merit in it and distributes it to the conference of the Supreme Court. There has to be an immediate forensic analysis of these decisions, to see who signed them, was the signature forged on these decisions/referrals issued 5 times.

When the Justices hear the case in the conference, there has to be a decision signed by all 9 justices. There has to be a forensic analysis of signatures of the Justices in all of the above mentioned cases. I demand to see the decision relating to my case Lightfoot v Bowen and have an opportunity to come to the Supreme Court and analyze the original document with signatures by my forensic document experts.

I demand to see the printout of entries of both internal docket seen by justices and the external docket seen by the public, to verify if those were identical at all times, particularly between January 20th and January 23rd.

2. If the signatures were not forged and the docket was not forged, and the justices have actually signed those decisions, then there is a possibility, that the Justices have not actually read the cases but rubber stamp signed the decisions made by their clerks, which would be a dereliction of duties by the Justices of the Supreme Court and illegal as well.

3. Last option is that the justices signed the documents and read the cases. There are a few problems with this scenario as well.

a. The cases have mentioned that not only Obama, but also Roger Calero, admitted citizen of Nicaragua, currently in US on a green card was allowed as a candidate on the ballot in at least five states. Not providing decision on this issue would be a dereliction of duties by the justices and violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

b. The cases mentioned above have provided ample evidence, showing that Obama/ Soetoro is not eligible for presidency and the refusal to hear the case on the merits is a dereliction of duties and violation of oath by the Justices of the Supreme Court, which is illegal as well.

I have related all this information to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts on March13th during a question and answer session after his lecture at the university of Moscow, Idaho, which was recorded on the audio tape and video tape. Justice Roberts has agreed to read the material and I have given the pleadings, the 3200 pages of WorldNetDaily petition and 164 page dossier of suspected criminal activity to the Secret service agent, who identified himself as agent Gilbert Shaw assigned to Justice Roberts.

Due to the above and great urgency of the matter in relation to the National security of the United States, on behalf of my clients in Lightfoot v Bowen and Easterling et al v Obama et al I demand immediate investigation of this matter. I also urge you to expedite your review of my dossier #1 and 2 that describes numerous social security numbers located for Mr. Obama, fraud, perjury, suspected instances of corruption, bribery, treason and criminal activity of the supporters of Obama, such as cyber crime, intimidation, harassment, forgery, fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud,voter fraud,  impersonation of US army officer, impersonation of an attorney, identity theft and other related crimes. I demand the subpoenas to be issued immediately to obtain all of vital records for Obama/Soetoro  to ascertain his legitimacy for Presidency and the position of commander in Chief. All of 305 million American citizens need these vital records, need to know whether a foreign national is usurping the position of the President and the Commander in chief.


Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Orly Taitz, Supreme Court and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Cybercrime at the Supreme Court

  1. richCares says:

    here’s a good tip, invest in trash cans, there will be a huge demand from these agencies, although some form of sanction would be nice. This women has lost her marbles.

  2. Zuzu says:

    I find it amazing that this woman holds a bar card. No many how many times it took her to pass.

  3. myson says:

    Interesting !
    The Judges must be quaking in their black robe, wonder woman Orly is at the gate !!!

    I demand…, i demand ….

    The USSC must be dj-ing at a disco & should play to the tune of this woman .

    Question: Can & does the USSC issue sanctions ?

  4. Zuzu says:

    I wonder if Ms. Taitz has any idea how the USSC reviews petitions. All it takes is a couple clicks of the mouse. For instance:

    Supreme Court of the United States, Selection of Cases

    Really, Orly. Click click.

  5. Man, I’m stunned.

    Apparently, you can graduate law school and pass the California Bar Exam and still be completely incapable of writing coherent sentences.

  6. Dr. Taitz took her law degree online. I think this is an argument against online law schools. Without the face to face time and classroom interaction, it’s hard to weed out the crazies.

  7. How did she manage to pull that off ?

    Here in Virginia if you didn’t go to an ABA accredited law school, they make you jump through extra hoops as part of the application process.

  8. California is the only state that allows people with online degrees to sit for the bar exam.

  9. Perhaps they will reconsider it now…..

    I’m really surprised it’s taking so long for some judge to slap Orly and Berg with Rule 11 sanctions.

  10. There is a fantastic new article over at the Yes To Democracy blog on Orly. I recommend it.

    Their Own Private Idaho – Birther Update

  11. Zuzu says:

    Same thing here in California:

    Cal Bar Rule 4.26

  12. Bob says:

    There’s a sanction OSC in the Hollister case. The judge specifically did not seek sanctions against Berg, but rather went after local counsel only. (Pretty crafty move by the judge.)

  13. Bob says:

    For those who think Taitz’s conduct warrants discipline, can you please cite which section(s) of the California Rule of Professional Conduct (or the Bus. & Prof. Code) that you think Taitz is violating?


  14. Zuzu says:

    By the way, Orly keeps referring to “secret service agents” accompanying the justices. USSC justices are not accompanied by secret service agents when they make public appearances, but Supreme Court Police officers or federal marshals. Unless they decline protection altogether.

    Congress swiftly heeded Burger’s wishes, and since then Supreme Court Police officers have been available to guard the justices wherever they may roam. However, when the justices travel around the country, they are sometimes protected by federal marshals rather than Supreme Court cops. Whether a marshal is assigned in lieu of a Supreme Court Police officer depends on the staffing situation at the court building and on who is arranging the trip—if it’s another branch of the government, they’ll usually provide a marshal or two.


    Undoubtedly the SCP officer or federal marshal who accompanied CJ Roberts identified himself as such, but Orly is too ignorant to register the difference. Typically, any description will do.

    Click click, Orly.

  15. NBC says:

    why all the “M” type entries on the Supreme Court docket public access system were unavailable for a couple of days.

    What are “M” type entries?

  16. They have the letter “M” “A” in their docket number. The petitions for Writ of Certiorari do not have the “M” “A” but applications for emergency injunctions and the like have an “M” “A”.

  17. NBC says:

    So that’s what they have in common. How did you establish this neat fact. That provides us with reasonable/reasoned explanations.

  18. NBC says:

    I checked did you mean A cases?

    No. 08A391 Title: Philip J. Berg, Applicant v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (08-4340) ~~~Date~~~

    No. 08A407 Title: Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket

    No. 08A524 Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California Case Nos.: (S168690)

  19. Expelliarmus says:

    M = “motion”
    (Probably whatever comes under Rules 21-22, “Motions & Applications”)

  20. Expelliarmus says:

    That makes a little more sense…


  21. Ian Gould says:

    “Undoubtedly the SCP officer or federal marshal who accompanied CJ Roberts identified himself as such, but Orly is too ignorant to register the difference. Typically, any description will do.”

    Maybe we should cut her some slack on semantic issues like this given that she’s not a native English speaker.

  22. Zuzu says:

    Well for what it’s worth, here’s the docket for Lightfoot:


    I think more may have happened since Jan. 26, but it’s a start.

  23. Zuzu says:

    Personally, I think her ignorance borders on the willful.

  24. Right, “A”.

  25. Thanks, was having a “senior moment”.

  26. Well if she’s going to take over the government with her civilian militia and start Nuremberg like-trials with her new civilian investigation organization, I am not inclined to cut her any slack.

  27. I remember back when it happened reading that all the applications were unavailable on the public access docket system, amid speculation that the court had changed to a system that wouldn’t list them any more.

  28. I think that is the end of that case. Since Orly’s motion to reconsider doesn’t follow the rules, I don’t know if it will go on the docket or not, and if so under what number.

  29. Expelliarmus says:

    Nothing more has happened. The Application for stay was dismissed on 1/26/09 — and Orly never manage to file a Cert Petition – the time for that has expired. You can’t get a “rehearing” or “reconsideration” of a stay application that’s been denied by the whole court – and if you could, then it would have a deadline that has also expired.

    Orly’s approach to this case reminds me of the efforts to revive this parrot.

  30. Mike says:

    A is M!

    Nyuknyuknyuk… Sorry, just had to poke a little fun at Randroids.

  31. GeorgetownJD says:

    Too funny!!! (But how true.)

  32. The parrot uttered one word before it expired, sounded like “moot”.

  33. NBC says:

    DOes not matter, you have pointed out an interesting point namely that applications temporarily did not show up on the external site. However, this does not mean that they were not still on the docket.

  34. NBC says:

    Orly has ‘applied’ for rehearing by delivering the files to Roberts. Since he is traveling, the case will not be filed until he returns 🙂

    She chose the ‘slow boat to China’ approach. My prediction: Bickell will refuse the application due to the fact that the filing for rehearing was filed too late. Orly may file a motion to allow for late filing and the judges may or may not grant such. Since the original case is fully moot, since she lacks claim of relief, and since she lacks standing, I doubt that the courts will allow her a rehearing.
    If she also filed a Quo Warranto request, then again the SC will deny due to lack of original jurisdiction.
    I am not a lawyer but I can read the rules…

  35. Expelliarmus says:

    Technically, I don’t think it is Mr. Bickell’s job. I believe Mr. Bickell is the staff attorney who processes stay applications — the “stay clerk” – so there is no particular reason for him to be involved.

    Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules make it clear that the clerk can reject any filing that is not in proper form. This is going to arrive to the court with a dead case number attached — if it arrives at all. (You do not “file” cases by giving paperwork to the security detail while the judge is on a road trip on non-court business — so unless there is something in an envelope clearly marked that it is to be delivered to the clerk of the court, there’s no particular reason to suppose it will ever get there).

    Anyway, there’s nothing to “rehear” as she never filed a petition for cert; all possible time deadlines have run – so even if she had the most compelling case in the world, the SC would not have jurisdiction to look at her paperwork.

  36. bogus info says:

    Hey guys, is Politijab down?

  37. NBC says:

    Update: The forum is going to remain down for the weekend while we work on the problems that we encountered today. Again we’re sorry for the inconvenience. This is being done to preserve the long term stability of the site. Brian and Justin

  38. bogus info says:

    Are they going to blame it on the birthers? LOL

  39. NBC says:

    You are correct, Bickell would not be involved but whoever the clerk is will reject it either because it was filed too late, or because it lacks an active underlying case.

    Prediction: I expect Orly anytime soon to accuse the Supreme Court judges of treason. After all, she talked to them, she pleaded with them, how could they possibly ignore her unless they were all “in it”.

  40. Somehow I think not.

  41. editorkorir says:

    What problems are Brian and Justin talking about? As of 2pm EST today (Sat 21st) the site was fine. I go away, come back tonight, and it’s”http 404 not found”. A weekend without PJ? Aarghhh!

  42. No, but I bet somewhere, a birther is going to take credit for it anyway.

  43. Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ad enough of this. Lightfoot v Bowen is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

    … E’s not pinin’! E’s passed on! Lightfoot v Bowen is no more! It has ceased to be! E’s expired and gone to meet is maker! E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed im to the perch e’d be pushing up the daisies! Is metabolic processes are now istory! E’s off the twig! E’s kicked the bucket, e’s shuffled off is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-LAWSUIT!!

  44. bogus info says:

    Here is a WND article.

    Supremes read Kansas blog?
    Focused on page dealing with claims of ineligibility

    What amazes me is why they would not expect SCOTUS to monitor these blogs after all the crazy allegations Orly has made regarding SCOTUS and SCOTUS employees. Not to mention that Orly has now shown up twice at two of the Justices speaking engagements and it appears she or some her patriots might be planning on showing up at Justice Thomas speaking engagement coming up in MN in April.

  45. thisoldhippie says:

    So I noticed that Orly Taitz has now posted the following:
    “I have called to follow up with the Supreme Court and the office of the Attorney General
    At the Supreme Court i talked to the officer Presiozi and officer Cessna ( I don’t know the exact spelling). I stated that I have given to Mr. Mr. Gilbert Shaw Secret Service agent for Chief Justice Roberts two pleadings Lightfoot v Bowen, motion for reconsideration and Easterling at al v Obama et al and I needed to know why the cases were not posted on the docket yet. Officer Cessna stated that Chief Justice Roberts hasn’t been in the building yet this whole week. He stated that Chief Justice Roberts traveled to a couple of other locations after Moscow Idaho and hasn’t been back yet. Officer Cessna took my information and stated that officer in charge Ms. Giaccio will call me back on Monday, she will be available from 7 am ET. If i don’t hear from her Monday morning, she can be reached at 202-479-2369. When Chief Justice Roberts and Agent Shaw arrive, they will fforward the paperwork to her and she will forward it to the clerks for posting.

    I called the office of the Attorney General Holder at 202-514-2001. Attorney General was not available. I left a message with his secretary and a recorded message. I stated that I represent Ambassador Keyes, 130 members of the military, including one Major General and 10 State Representatives. I stated that I have submitted Quo Warranto petition on the 3rd of March and three Dossiers regarding matters of National Security and I have to talk to Attorney General in regarding to those matters as soon as possible. I stated that I will be in Washington DC on Monday and together with Mr. Joseph Farah, Editor of World Net Daily, I would like to visit Mr. Holder and discuss the above Quo Warranto petition and Dossiers. I hope Mr. Holder will be able to find a few minutes to discuss these matters of National Security. and National Importance.”

    I can’t help but feel she thinks she can just push her way through the court system and through sheer ignorance and bull-headedness, get her way. The same with her “question” to Justice Roberts. She begins by explaining her sacrifices and asking for leeway – which translated into I am about to completely ignore all of the rules that were just set forth for this question/answer session.

  46. bogus info says:

    It appears that RSOL is now down.

  47. Gordon says:

    Today all the Right Wing bloggers are reporting that they have been in contact with Orly, and she reports that a black van has been parked outside her home and two FBI agents came to the door asking for her. They make it sound so ominous, as if Orly were in some danger from the government. The more I follow the twist and turns of this comedy, the more I am convinced that Orly is running a long con game. She will continue with one phony issue after another, in order to solicit donations from the wingnut crowd.

  48. kimba says:

    She’s copying Pidgeon, who has yet to explain what happened Wed. These are supposed to be attorneys. If FBI agents were parked in a van in front of my house, I would call all my neighbors, then ask the local police to come, and the local TV news and newspaper. When my neighbors came out and the police arrived, I would walk up to the van and ask for ID and the nature of their business. This is a total fakeout.

  49. Well after all, she is trying to overthrow the government. What does she expect. [Assuming any of it is true.]

  50. AXJ says:

    * NOTE: Apparently Dr. Orly Taitz has obtained a true fully certified copy of the 1964 divorce decree and corresponding documentation that proves Mr. OBAMA was in fact not born in the USA and will be presented to the Court on that day while all parties are legally served as well.

    Guess it takes an Israeli to discover the truth, huh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.