Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz

If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi

Can someone get me the phone number and e-mail address of Lyle Denniston. He correctly posted on the SCOTUS blog that the decision in Noonan case relates only to the STAY of certification of election, supreme Court never ruled that Obama is a legitimate President, it never ruled that Obama has a single valid ID, that any of the papers he is using are genuine, that Obama is even his legal last name

Posted on | February 20, 2013 | 33 Comments



33 Responses to “Can someone get me the phone number and e-mail address of Lyle Denniston. He correctly posted on the SCOTUS blog that the decision in Noonan case relates only to the STAY of certification of election, supreme Court never ruled that Obama is a legitimate President, it never ruled that Obama has a single valid ID, that any of the papers he is using are genuine, that Obama is even his legal last name”

  1. Jeffrey Stadnik
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:01 am
  2. RJ
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:16 am

    By issuing the limited Noonan decision denying the stay of certification, the other issues did not have to be addressed and were rendered moot!!!

  3. rose
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:34 am
  4. rose
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:34 am
  5. Adam
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:35 am

    ldenniston@scotusblog.com (the 1st letter is an L) as it looks like a number 1 as well))


    https://twitter.com/lylden ?????


    Ashley Berke
    Director of Public Relations
    Phone: 215.409.6693
    Email: aberke@constitutioncenter.org

    Lauren Saul
    Public Relations Manager
    Phone: 215.409.6895
    Email: lsaul@constitutioncenter.org

  6. Riled Up
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:46 am

    Is this case still active? Will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?

  7. truly
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:48 am
  8. rose
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:49 am

    I sent him a email requesting his phone number and told him about your web site also gave him your phone number, sure that was ok.. I asked him if he did not want to give me his number please call you.

  9. rose
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:52 am


    mispelled his name left the i out…sorry

  10. Lewis Thomason
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:59 am

    What they did by refusing to hear your case was in effect saying it had no merit.

  11. Gail Evoy
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

    You probably already have this but, other than contacting him through ‘Linkedin'(I’m not signed up) and a paid phone/email lookup search service (which I don’t have either), this is all I could find…

  12. Ray
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:22 pm
  13. Phil Hansen
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

    Lyle Denniston’s eMail is ldenniston@scotusblog.com

  14. Il Bacio
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

    I haven’t found Lyle Denniston’s email yet but I found this in the Live Blog of orders:


    “Lyle: In answer to a question, the Court denied a stay in the case of Noonan v. Bowen (12A606), but did not act on any other aspect of that case.”


    “Lyle: In response to a question, a denial of a stay, as in the Noonan case, means that the Court has refused to postpone a lower court decision that someone is challenging. The usual request for a “stay:” (ie, a postponement) comes when the party making the challenge wants the lower court ruling kept on hold until they can appeal. A “stay” is simply a postponement order.”


    Was Noonan v. Bowen denied or was the stay denied?

    I also found this and it looks like no decision was made.


  15. Il Bacio
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

    This is from the admin page, it might be a way to reach Denniston:

    General Feedback & Corrections

    feedback /-\t scotusblog.com

  16. Jonathan L. Gal
    February 20th, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

    So, the case may still be heard by SCOTUS???

  17. Ray
    February 20th, 2013 @ 1:03 pm


  18. Scott
    February 20th, 2013 @ 1:07 pm
  19. Jonathan L. Gal
    February 20th, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

    I posted a request for assistance on the Facebook Page of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association, a deeply conservative group of Utah County Sheriffs, of which I am an honorary member.

    I asked for small donation to your case and also for interviews of sheriffs, per your request.

    Jonathan L. Gal
    Provo, UT

  20. DonnaLS
    February 20th, 2013 @ 2:18 pm

    Submitted on 2013/02/20 at 12:35 am

    It appears that the SCOTUS clerks may be up to their normal tricks of concealing what really happened during Tuesdays orders. At 9:50am (Tuesday;2/19/2013) a live scotusblog.com entry by Lyle Denniston stated — ‘In answer to a question, the Court denied a stay in the case of Noonan v. Bowen (12A606), but did not act on any other aspect of that case.’ — Several hours later the Supremecourt.gov docket showed ‘Application (12A606) denied by the court. It appears the docket ‘denied’ entry was intentionally entered in error or meant to be misleading, and that it is likely that more orders will come for case 12A606 on 2/10/2013. My bet is that we will have good news in this application. Truth can only be concealed for so long, and the momentum is surely running against this corrupt foreigner and his organization that has usurped the office of POTUS and occupied the people’s White House

  21. DonnaLS
    February 20th, 2013 @ 2:20 pm

    – – apologies – above ‘before its news’ post was Orly’s –

  22. patricia anderson
    February 20th, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

    …sounds as though the entirety of your case has yet to be ruled on… the denial of request to stay certification was necessary because you cannot order that which has already occurred to be ‘stayed’… you may be receiving a ‘split decision’, denied in part and granted in part… sure do hope so…

  23. Bruriah Sarah
    February 20th, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

    Dr. Taitz

    With this new information that this had to do with the stay, then it seems to me that the certification argument is wide open. Hopefully, the Supreme Court rules would allow you to file with the Supreme Court. I am wondering if you can’t take this to a congressional review – and I have heard Senator Lindsey Graham speak and you might find an ally with him.

    Here is the webpage:


  24. Paul Carlson
    February 20th, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

    I saw that the stay was for Dec 11. That was application 12a606. 12a606 was also denied yesterday.
    Unless there is something I missed.

  25. Jerry
    February 20th, 2013 @ 6:42 pm
  26. Jerry
    February 20th, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

    Vote Fraud


    February 19, 2013 North Carolina’s Civitas Institute has revealed that the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Obama campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the internet in violation of state law. This has been confirmed through records requests filed with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The counting is not yet complete.

    North Carolina does not allow online voting, but according to Civitas, SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website, Gottaregister.com, to use a web-based registration program. The SBE’s chief lawyer responded to the charge with a plainly disingenuous 1984-newspeak answer:

    Wright repeatedly denied that the SBE allowed online voter registration, insisting that it was “web-based voter registration”[ii] instead, as if there could be a “web-based” process that wasn’t online.

    The technology from Allpoint Voter Services uses remote-control pens to transmit “signatures” over the Internet, according to techpresident.com[iii]. After entering voter information in an online form, the citizen “signs” it with a stylus or a finger. The Allpoint technology records the signature and then transmits it to one of two autopens – one in California, the other in Nevada[iv]. One of the pens transcribes the signature on to a paper voter registration form. Allpoint then mails the documents to local election boards – or is supposed to, a point we’ll come back to.

    To say this is not “online” registration but “web-based” is like saying a certain vehicle is not a car, it’s an automobile. The point of having a “wet signature” – one in ink – is to provide a universally accepted way proving that a prospective voter is affirming in person all the facts on the form. To have an auto pen inserted at one point in this long computerized process is a far different thing. Even the Obama campaign called it online voter registration. Because, no matter how you twist words around, that’s what it is.

    The Obama administration has shown itself over and over to be completely contemptuous of the law. As I described in a WorldNetDaily article last November, the Obama administration was willing to use whatever means at its disposal to win this election, legal and illegal. Up until now, my assumption has been that, while they plainly engaged in vote fraud in some circumstances, it wasn’t enough to throw the election. Depending upon whether or not they used tricks like this nationwide – and they probably did – they may have in fact stolen this election.

  27. js/js
    February 20th, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

    Report all crimes of deception, fraud, obstruction of justice and misfeasance by the
    CLERKS of SCOTUS to: OPM, and Goodlatte at the
    House Judiciary Committee. The Clerks are
    black CS FED GOVT employees (1 white woman also), and they can be summarily terminated by OPM for this rotten illegal behavior. Report on all also by e-mail and snail mail to Justice John Roberts.
    OPM & DOJ must act on this. They must all be
    terminated. Totally un-Amercian fraud, IMO.

  28. Henry Tisdale
    February 20th, 2013 @ 6:53 pm

    Orly, I do not know where I stand with you, but I cannot resist begging you to hold back on any return volleys until we get the whole picture. In fact, I am asking all Birthers to hold back on telling anyone that “treason even exists in SCOTUS” There is nothing to gain but it may give the Justices reason to turn their back on anything from Orly in the future. In other words, fellow troops, let’s hold back on anything negative until we know for sure what SCOTUS really said to Orly and others.

    However, if anyone knows a clean, simple way to get past the Justices’ reception boys and girls, then write a well written, positive note on how hard Orly has worked, and how she has made sure everything she found and publicized is real, honest and factual. How you get beyond the people in the SCOTUS receiving room, I don’t have the slightest idea. If any of you out there know a good clean way to pass them over, then write, ok?

    Many thanks Orly, for getting all the way to our Supreme Court. Lady, that is progress, and to quote you, the truth is never on time. This alone makes us shake in our boots, and want to say, “We Americans are doomed”. But Orly, you never took that road, remember? And although you and I don’t correspond much anymore, I still have a strong solid feeling about your talents and your professional knowledge. I am still cheering for you. In fact, like those guys who were on the beneficial side of the street when Lady Godiva made her famous ride, I yell, “HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE”

  29. Francisco
    February 20th, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

    But if SCOTUS rules over the State Certification only, would it not provide for a trial in California, where juror would be able to judge the evidence of fraud presented against candidate Obama, and once found guilty of this offense, the next step would be Impeachment and trial in the Senate ?

  30. SS
    February 20th, 2013 @ 8:41 pm

    He is from Utah and on the Judiciary Committee


    Congressman Jason Chaffetz
    Fax ..(202)-225-5629


  31. JIMBO
    February 20th, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

    This is just another stall tatic.the obot’s are just doing and saying the same oh same oh, pissing on your foot and convincing you it’s raining. it’s all about stall stall stall. don’t fall for it DR.Taitz.your doing a good job, keep up the pressure, time is of the essence they want to complete their entire agenda.

  32. Rod Riddle
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:07 pm

    SCOTUS already knows the evidence in this case, they just don’t want to be officially presented with it in a formal setting. That is the reason for the games being played. I have read comments about Clarence Thomas making a joke out of the eligibility issue in front of Congress. I personally feel he knows the deal and that was his way of exposing the skull duggery that has taken place concerning the matter.

  33. Sheila Demus
    February 20th, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

Leave a Reply