Posted on 12/03/2008 7:02:02 PM PST by Calpernia
Lightfoot v. Bowen: A new lawsuit
Today, December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen, docket number S168690. This is a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for Stay". The coversheet with the submission information can be found here.
Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will either issue an emergency stay of the voting of the electors, or decline to hear the case because it is a federal issue. Either way, Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will make this pronouncement in a timely manner.
Anyone who is concerned about this issue and wishes to express their concern to the court can do so:
Interested parties can contact the California Supreme Court by phone
1-213-830-7570 Main court number in Los Angeles
1-415-865-7060 Chief Justice Ronald M. George in San Francisco
1-415-865-7000 Main court number in San Francisco
or by FAX
415-865-7183 Main FAX number in San Francisco
to express their concern that this complaint be looked at in a timely matter.
I believe the adoption laws are fairly consistent from state to state, I am from California.
You can’t change where you born.
I don’t care what he believes. I am suppose to believe that was never challenged on any of his documentation. I was challenged for my high school records for a job 8 years ago. I drove to the school and requested the records and also provided my transcripts for college to further prove that I had graduated from High School, a typical requirement for a job these days.
He indicated in his book that his family where typical white people. I wonder why he has so few pictures of him with his family and the ones that are available do not look very warm. This guys life is an invention. Then again maybe his family was typically white.
As to his family lying to him that is rich considering what we are asking from him. School records, student loan records, passports(all of them), Aliases he has used or currently uses
Yesssssss!!!!
Not for 1961 it wasn't.
This is evolving into something as the info spreads the country. The case is beginning to grow legs.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.