You Can't Hurry Love: Orly Taitz Files Petition Asking Supremes To Recuse Themselves From Swearing In Obama

I just received this e-mail and the following legal petition from Orly Taitz. The legal petition asks the Supreme Court Justices "to recuse themselves from administering the oath of the President"!

>Please see an attachment. a petition for the Chief Justice Roberts and other Justices to recuse themselves from administring the oath of the President on January the 20th due to the fact that it constitutes a conflict of interest with the conference of the Supreme Court on January the 23rd, when my petition Lightfoot v Bowen will be heard, that states that Barack Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born citizen and not eligible for presidency.

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082

No. 08A524
In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley

v.

Debra Bowen, Secretary Of The State Of California
_____________________________________________________________________________________
On APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
_____________________________________________________________________________

SUGGESTION OF RECUSAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON HE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ANTONIN SCALIA, CLARENCE THOMAS, SAMUEL ALITO, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, STEVEN BRYER, JOHN PAUL STEVENS, DAVID SOUTER, ANTHONY KENNEDY
________________________________________________________________________________________
Petioner(s) Lightfoot, et. al. respectfully suggest that Honorable Chief Justice oberts and Honorable Associate Justices of the Supreme Court recuse themselves from the swearing of Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States on January 20, 2009 due to conflict of interest.


BACKGROUND

The inauguration of Barack Obama (Obama) is scheduled for January 20, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts is scheduled to administer the oath of office to Obama.

Litigants in both federal and state courts have challenged Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President. The specific constitutional question is whether Obama is a natural born citizen, which is an absolute prerequisite to occupy the Office of President.

In addition to this case, 31 cases challenging Obama's eligibility have been filed in different courts around the nation.

This case is currently scheduled to be heard at the conference of all nine Justices on January 23, three days after the scheduled inauguration.

So far, none of these cases have led to judicial consideration or decision on the merits. Procedural obstacles appear to have precluded getting a judicial ruling on Obama's eligibility, one way or the other, no discovery was done yet, there were no judicial subpoenas issued yet to allow discovery, no original documents providing verification of eligibility for presidency or even mere US citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama were seen by any court in this Nation, no US citizen has ever seen any of such documents.

There is genuine and serious doubt about his eligibility. Since adoption of the Constitution more than 200 years ago, the natural born citizen requirement has never been the basis for any judicial ruling. No known President had a father that was a foreigner or alien. Most astounding, however, is that no government official or agency, federal or state, checked or determined Obama’s eligibility. The American tradition of checks and balances has never been in play.

More cases are likely to be brought to this Court. If ineligible, every use of Presidential power by Obama will be unlawful and subject to being declared void. Legitimacy of occupancy of an office is far different than challenging an exercise of power by a lawful occupant. Countless claims of unlawful Presidential acts by persons directly impacted cannot be ignored. It cannot be assumed that procedural obstacles will always stop this Court from having to decide Obama's eligibility.
Thus, some day, probably sooner than later, this Court, including its Chief Justice, may finally have to confront that constitutional question. In the interim, “usurper” will become a routine word. It truly is an unprecedented situation in American history.

One who administers an oath conveys to the audience that the one taking the oath is eligible to do so. Many words can be used in lieu of "conveys", including certifies, endorses, attests, vouches, and ratifies. When one administers an oath, verbal certifications, endorsements, attestations, vouchers, or ratifications are not necessary--acts speaks louder than words.

The audience will not be a small gathering. Millions are expected to be in the immediate area. Live television, replays, newscasts, newspapers, and magazines will bring to hundreds of millions that act of the nation's chief judicial officer and the message his act conveys.

Yet, that judge has and will continue to process claims about the eligibility of Obama to be President. The problem for the Chief Justice and associate Justices is obvious. So is the solution--forthwith excusing and absenting from administering the oath to Obama.


APPLICABLE LAW

This is one of those situations where simply recognizing the issue immediately provides the correct answer. No legal citations or discussion is necessary. Elementary ethics and common sense are more than sufficient.

Neither actual bias or pre-judgment is necessary for disqualification. A judge must disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding where impartiality can be reasonably questioned. To avoid being in that position, a judge must avoid any public or private conduct, by words or deeds, regarding the merits of a pending or impending matter.

Unquestionably, if the Chief Justice administers the oath on January 20, it will be necessary for him to disqualify himself in any case that raises Obama's eligibility. The corollary is that disqualification is not an issue if he declines to participate in administering the oath.

There is no impediment to the Chief Justice declining to administer the oath. Administering the oath to an incoming President is required by the Constitution. But there is no requirement about who must perform that act. Although the Chief Justice traditionally does it, other federal judges have done so. An Associate Supreme Court Justice has done it. So have a Circuit Court and District Court judge.

But it has not always been a federal judge. Twice, New York judges performed the task. The first was George Washington's first term, since no federal judges had yet been appointed. The second was almost 100 years later, when Chester Arthur assumed office.

Indeed, it is not necessarily true that it must be performed by a judge. Calvin Coolidge was initially sworn in by his father, a notary public. Later, he was administered the oath by Judge A. Hoehling of the District of Columbia Supreme Court.

Who does the administration as to the Vice-President has varied even more. But there have been numerous occasions in recent history where the person who administered the oath was not a judge. The Speaker of the House (from both parties) did so four times and the Senate GOP leader did once. Mixed in between have been five different Associate Justices and the Chief Justice once.

28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) states, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.”

Under current case law, the totality of circumstances supports recusal. Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) – authored by Justice Scalia – reviewed the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 455, especially in view of the “massive changes” made in 1974, 510 U.S., at546. It was
specifically noted that, “what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.
Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [i]s required whenever ‘impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.’” Moreover, subsection (a) “covers all aspects of partiality” 510 U.S., at 546, 510 U.S., at 553. It should be pointed out that Canon 3(C)(1) mirrors 28 USCS § 455 (a) in stating that “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Justice Kennedy’s concurrence also made the point that recusal is mandatory here:
[T]he central inquiry under § 455(a) is the appearance of partiality, not its place of origin; 510 U.S., at 563
Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions
about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached
observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be
disqualified. 510 U.S., at 564 and Section 455(a) … addresses the appearance of partiality, guaranteeing not only that a partisan judge will not sit, but also that no reasonable person will have that suspicion. 510 U.S., at 567.
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) – another Supreme Court
case that considered 28 U.S.C. § 455 in depth – similarly emphasized that “a violation of §
455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that
a justice, judge, or magistrate knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality,
notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances.” Liljeberg, 486 U.S., at 850.
Along these lines, the lower courts have determined that:
[T]he judge’s actual state of mind, purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are
not the issue. … The standard is purely objective. The inquiry is limited to outward
manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In applying the test, the initial
inquiry is whether a reasonable factual basis exists for calling the judge’s impartiality into
question.
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).

“[T]he appearance of partiality is as dangerous as the fact of it.” Conforte, 624 F.2d at 881.
Because “a judge is under an affirmative, self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself sua
sponte whenever the proper grounds exist.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th
Cir. 1989)


CONCLUSION

The integrity of our nation’s judiciary, both federal and state, is at stake. So is respect for all judges and belief in their impartiality. Having a system of impartial justice is one of our most cherished freedoms and it must protected.

By declining to participate in administration of the oath on January 20, Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and Honorable Associate Justices will very vividly uphold, not tarnish, our system of justice. This is truly a historic moment. It is not historic because the president elect happens to be one of a mixed racial origin, but because he was able to reach the point of inauguration by hiring an army of lawyers that keeps his original birth certificate hidden from all the citizens of the country, that is particularly troubling since he is coming from the state of Hawaii, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain a Hawaiian certification of life birth and do it based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence. I am sure this event will be studied by our children and grandchildren in school, in History classes. Your decision in this matter will be studied by law students for years to come. I hope that future generations will learn that the Justices of the Supreme Court did not succumb to the pressures of biased media or mob mentality. I hope that the future generations will learn that nine Justices of the Supreme Court were the bastion of the Constitution, of Impartiality, of Justice and did not give a nod of approval to one that refused to prove his eligibility to the citizens of this country.






Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that the foregoing Petition is made in the good faith belief that the facts are true, that the arguments are appropriate, and that the recusal of honorable Chief Justice and Honorable Associate Justices from administering the oath at the presidential ceremony on January the 20th will best serve the interests of justice and the integrity of the judiciary.

January 12, 2009


respectfully submitted,


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,
counselor for the petitioners







Supreme Court of the United States


Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley


v.


Debra Bowen, Secretary Of The State Of California
On APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
_____________________________________________________________________________

SUGGESTION OF RECUSAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON HE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on this 12 of January, 2009 she sent by first-class mail, postage
pre-paid, a copy of the foregoing Suggestion for Recusal to each of the following:
Gregory G. Garre
Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington DC 20530-0001

Debra Bowen
Secretary of State of California
1500 11th str., Sacramento, CA 95814

Signed

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz, ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Montesquieu on the Constitution

Montesquieu published the Spirit of Laws in 1748 and died in 1755, 32 years before the United States Constitution was adopted. The Founding Fathers relied on Montesquieu in their thinking about federalism and the Federalist Papers quote Montesquieu as an authority. Moving the clock forward 120 years, one of the questions that the Progressives raised concerned the Constitution's value. For example, Charles Beard argued, likely accurately, that the participants in the Constitutional Convention were in part motivated by concern for their own economic welfare. The model that Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl offered was one of a powerful, rationally guided state that could address emerging social problems. The fly in the Progressive ointment is its claim that rationality is possible. The history of rationality offers mixed results. The history of monetary policy, the most fundamental of political policies, has been one of error and misstep. Education policy has been a standing joke for ten decades. Simple retirement programs like Social Security and regulation of private pensions have been full of error. The Progressives misunderstood the principle of rationality. Intelligence is not primarily derived through deductive logic, but rather is learned inductively. Pragmatic experimentation is far more useful than mathematical derivation of hypotheses from clear and distinct axioms.

The Constitution works, so it would be foolhardy to reject it or to be overly aggressive in modifying it. Judicial activism is a crap shoot, and judges are as guilty of the American vice of speculative risk-taking as are Wall Street executives and real estate developers.

Montesquieu (Book V, Section XV):

"After what has been said, one would imagine that human nature should perpetually rise up against despotism. But, notwithstanding the love of liberty, so natural to mankind, notwithstanding their innate detestation of force and violence, most nations are subject to this very government. This is easily accounted for. To form a moderate government, it is necessary to combine several powers; to regulate, temper and set them in motion; to give, as it were, ballast to one, in order to enable it to counterpoise the other. This is a masterpiece of legislation, rarely produced by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence. On the contrary, a despotic government offers itself, as it were, at first sight; it is uniform throughout; and as passions only are requisite to establish it, this is what every capacity may reach."

Montesquieu on the Culture War

In Book IV of The Spirit of Laws Montesquieu discusses how the laws of education ought to animate the principles of the chief political systems, republics, monarchies and tyrannies. He emphasizes virtue as the chief principle on which education in a republic needs to focus. He describes virtue as follows:

"This virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, is is the source of all private virtues; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself.

"This love is peculiar to democracies. In these alone the government is intrusted to private citizens. Now, a government is like every thing else; to preserve it we must love it.

"Has it ever been known that kings were not fond of monarchy, or tht despotic princes hated arbitrary power?

"Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education: but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example...

"It is not the young people that are degenerate; they are not spoiled till those of maturer age are already sunk into corruption."

Montesquieu emphasizes the importance of familial inculcation of belief in democracy, republicanism and patriotism. Yet, the American higher education system advocates academic freedom and in turn uses the academic freedom to present a curriculum that is primarily "critical".

Would Montesquieu have believed that the benefits of today's universities are worth their costs? I think not. Universities exist in order to make the nation wealthier and more successful. But there is no evidence that what occurs in universities contributes to technological knowlege in excess of universities' costs. It is likely that the subsidization of those who have contempt for freedom and republicanism harms the nation in a variety of ways--politically as well as economically.

Left Wing, Anti-Israel Egg Throwing, Hate, Violence

I just received this e-mail dated January 12 from Pamela Hall, who blogs about this demonstration (with photos) here:

This is a report just in from an associate. The persons assaulted asked to remain anonymous, but they participated in the rallies in Manhattan today:

""After walking home from the 42 Street & 7th Avenue Pro-Israel rally, I watched the Muslim rally participants march up 8th Avenue closely controlled by many NYC police to keep them moving along. Even so, it appeared that many of the young men and women were eyeing the bystanders on the sidewalk in threatening ways almost challenging
someone to disagree with their Death to Israel and God Bless Hitler chants.

I went back to my apartment where I met my boyfriend who had also just returned from the second Pro Israel rally on 39th Street & 7th Avenue. We walked outside the building and across a major midtown avenue on the West Side to buy some groceries. He was still carrying the Israeli flag and we were both wearing baseball caps with the American flag and USA on the brims. A large number of Muslims were milling around since it seems that their rally had reached its end point and was dispersing. Six Muslim men were being photographed with posters with the words, "Praise Hamas and Hezbollah, Reopen the Ovens" and were taking photos of themselves and their posters. Seeing us with the Israel flag, they began screaming, " You're assholes,
Kill the Jews, We are going to kill you, This is OUR country," etc.

We went into the corner deli and they began banging on the window and stood outside in a very threatening mob waiting for us to leave. I heard one man say, "She is a female" - very observant. I don't know what this was suppose to signal to his fellow terrorists. When we left the deli a mob of the original Muslims and others who joined
them came up to us screaming death to the Jews, and one man around 19/20 years old ran up and with force and hatred threw an egg into my friend's eye. This may not seem like much but I am sure the intent as for the egg shells to be lodged in his eye. The egg was not thrown from afar against his coat but was thrown like a rock would be - to inflict as much harm as possible. The assailant then grabbed our Israeli flag, threw it to the ground, and was spitting on it and wiping his feet on it. When we asked a traffic cop to make an arrest, the assailant ran away down the block but the traffic agent did not answer us nor did he call 911. He passively stood by doing NOTHING.

Two people standing on the street took photos of our attack and said they would email us with the photos to identity the criminals. We then walked back across the street to our building and were followed by a pack of Muslims - about 8 or 10 - who continued to threaten, mock and scream at us. They seemed surprised at our ferocious counter verbal attack. However, they came right within 6 inches of us saying
they would kill us. One of the men was about to attack me when my boyfriend saw the assault about to begin and said, "If you touch her, I swear I'll kill you." At that point the original traffic control cop came over and a second traffic agent joined him and forced the crowd to disperse. They asked us to go into the apartment building
lobby which we did.

We immediately called the police and asked to make a police report. Two NYC policemen came to the apartment about an hour later hour and took the information. They were very courteous and said they will file the report and a detective is to contact us tomorrow. They apologized for taking so long to come by but explained that there were many incidents of a similar nature that were taking place as the
Muslim rally broke up. They also shared that 2 NYC police officers had been attacked at the rally and that the Muslims are 'out of control.'

Without the photos, it will be near impossible to find the Muslims involved. Even with the photos, I am not sure if the police can find the assailant or make an arrest. I am told by an attorney friend, that just the act of following and threatening is a crime in and of itself. Whatever it takes, we'll take it as far as possible to prosecute.

Any ideas as how to pursue this would be welcome. This attack could happen to anyone. This attack happened in midtown Manhattan, a major American city on a Sunday afternoon. Our country is under attack from within. We need to do much more than attend rallies."

WAKE UP AMERICA. Can we be protected by our police? We must be concerned. We too have heard the taunts of this is their country and get out of here. We must take our country back before it's lost for good.