Barack Obama uses a relative's social security number (Harrison J. Bounel)

Supreme Court denies Obama birther eligibility case Noonan v. Bowen
.......................
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
....................................

Orly Taitz - an attorney for the plaintiffs - conveyed some additional allegations against the president beyond what was included in Noona's case pleadings. This week, an unidentified source has informed the California-based lawyer that the reason why Michelle Robinson Obama (a graduate of Harvard Law School) ceased to have a law license in Illinois is because she got in trouble for letting Barack Obama use a relative's social security number (Harrison J. Bounel).

The SSN 042-68-4425 is simultaneously tied to Obama and Bounel in background check systems.

The plaintiffs also protested lower-level clerks' decision to withhold the Supplemental Brief and other case pleadings from several of the Supreme Court justices. Taitz had vouched for a thorough review of the arguments to as many of the high court's judges.

Court records show that on Dec. 26, 2012, or three weeks before Obama's second inauguration, Chief Justice John Roberts reversed Justice Anthony Kennedy's rejection and ordered the case distributed for conference on Feb. 15.

However, on that day SCOTUS released its list of granted petitions and Noonan v. Bowen was not included.

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.
........................

online petition requesting a formal investigation into the president's government IDs and SSN

The right to bear arms is a constitutional issue

..........................

10th Circuit rules that concealed carry is not a right

It is very clear, however, that the right to bear arms is a constitutional issue, so states that try to ban carry of any form are infringing. If this gentleman wanted to carry in Denver, which has asserted a "Home Rule" authority to ban open carry, and that authority has been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, then he would have had a very valid argument. Unable to carry openly due to the city ordinance, and unable to carry concealed due to state law, his right was truly infringed. I don't know if he needed to carry in Denver, but, whatever, that wasn't the argument he made.

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

............................
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


The territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit includes the six states of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.

.........................

The U.S. Constitution and 44 States have Constitutional provisions enumerating the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

(Colorado has an open carry law. Their state constitution has it written in stone that concealed carry is not justified. People in Colorado do have a right to bear arms. They will be able to still bear arms in the open.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution gives the right to Americans to own a gun. It doesn't include a provision that you must carry it around in your home only!!! Colorado has restricted that right to open carry only.

To me the right to bear arms means concealed or open in any state.

Many states have constitution provisions for people to bear arms that the federal government can't over ride.

South Carolina is one of them.) Story Reports

South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

(Its strange that the drudge report has nothing about the 10th circuit court of appeals ruling on concealed carry?? I did mean to say the 10th circus court of appeals. My advise is to go out and buy a handgun or rifle. You have the right to defend yourself against crinimals of any kind including criminals that try to take away you Constitutional right to protect yourself.) Story Reports