Orly – Lightfoot v Bowen – Orly's Failure to file timely

On March 12, Orly filed a motion with the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in the case Lightfoot v Bowen. Remember how the Supreme Court denied the original application for stay. Unfortunately, the 25 day period which is granted for such a motion had passed In addition, it seems rather surprising that the stay was for a “petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.” And yet as far as I know such a petition for writ of certiori was never submitted. . I am not sure why she let the opportunities to file or reconsider pass, but in her latest motion, she raises some pretty outlandish claims.

The  only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.

It seems rather strange that it is always the fault of others when Orly fails, after all the possibility that the case lacked merrit has to be rejected in favor of far more outlandish ‘conspiracy theories’

2009-03-12 Lightfoot v Bowen – Motion for Reconsideration

A bit of paranoia, a hint of conspiracy and an overwhelming lack of legal support. Yes, another Orly filing, or in this case a re-filing of Lightfoot v Bowen. I predict that the case will not even make it to conference. In fact, I am pretty sure that the clerk will reject the filing. For what reason? It was filed too late. Again, Orly’s lack of familiarity with legal procedures will be one of the major reasons for the inevitable failures. I will be posting more legal information once Orly has attempted to serve the brief on Roberts. That’s just too good to be true…

12-03-2008 – Lightfoot v Bowen – PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M.
Obenschain, Camden W. Me.Connell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Brady
Petitioners,
v.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and DOES 1-100
Respondents.

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR STAY OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CERTIFICATION OF 2008

Lightfoot v Bowen – Docket – Denied – Denied

Case Summary

Supreme Court Case:	S168690
Court of Appeal Case(s):	no data found
Case Caption:	LIGHTFOOT v. BOWEN
Case Category:	Original Proceeding – Civil
Start Date:	12/03/2008
Case Status:	closed
Issues:	none
Disposition Date:	12/05/2008
Case Citation:	none

12-05-2009 S168690 LIGHTFOOT (GAIL) v.    BOWEN (DEBRA)   Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition & stay denied

Onwards to the US Supreme Court

No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 26 2009 Application (08A524) denied by the Court.