• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 31 other followers

  • December 2012
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov   Jan »
  • Recent Comments

    personalized wristba… on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    rapists on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    http://Insideoutouts… on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    Https://Ubbauccaa.Po… on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    Ardis on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
  • Categories

  • Blog Stats

    • 3,444 hits
  • Blogs I Follow

  • Advertisements




Dear Mr. Sutter and Mr. Fossum,

I am in receipt of a December 3, 2012 letter from Chief Clerk William Sutter drafted and signed by Eric Fossum in regards to denial of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right for Redress of Grievances, which was exhibited twice by the clerk’s office’s wrongful denial of Plaintiff’s right to file a petition for Writ of Certiorari in Case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304.

In aforementioned letter from you Mr. Fossum provided incorrect information, specifically he stated that there was no order from the clerk’s office denying the “right by Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari” and that there was no attempt to file a writ of certiorari by the Plaintiff. Exhibit 1 December 3 letter from Clerk Sutter signed by Eric Fossum

1. Please, see attached two Federal Express receipts:

a. Exhibit 2. Federal Express Receipt showing a package delivered to SCOTUS on October 2, 2012 9:12 am signed by J Kouros.

b. Exhibit 3 Federal Express receipt showing a second package sent to  SCOTUS on October 7, 2012 and delivered to SCOTUS on October 9, 2012  9:52 am and signed by D. Gamble.

2. On December 6, 2012 around 10:45 am plaintiff Taitz called SCOTUS and demanded to talk to Chief Clerk Sutter in regards to her grievance of wrongful denial of her right for redress of grievances. Assistant for Chief Clerk Sutter stated that he is not available and advised Taitz to talk to a different case analyst, Mr. Traves. Mr. Traves reviewed the computer file of the case and stated that he can see on his internal docket  documents filed on October 1, received on October 2, 2012, he can see and can read a letter from Chief Clerk Sutter, which incorrectly stated that Plaintiff is out of time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Plaintiff was actually over a month early as the final decision was on August 8 and she had 90 days until November 7, 2012), however analyst Traves could not see on the electronic docket a  package  received by the court on October 9, 2012 and signed by D. Gamble.

It appears that there is nefarious activity in the court and someone threw the package away and either never docketed that package or deleted a docket entry made earlier.



Read the rest at the above link


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Natural Born Citizen

Respecting the Constitution?


Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic

Friends of Citizen Wells

A place for discussion of just about anything.

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.


WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d bloggers like this: