Very Important-petition filed with the Supreme Court for Justices to recuse themsleves from swearing Obama as president

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 Roberts 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 unnecessary 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