Additional Titles









Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools,
and Systems Education











By Lynn Stuter

February 3, 2009

The Honorable Chief Justice John G Roberts
Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr
Honorable Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Honorable Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg
Honorable Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia
Honorable Justice David H. Souter
Honorable Justice John Paul Stevens
Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
1 First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

On January 20, 2009, Chief Justice John G Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to a man who has failed to provide one iota of evidence that he is, indeed, a natural born citizen of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. To the contrary, overwhelming evidence indicates this man to be a citizen, to this day, of Indonesia; that he owes no allegiance and has proven no allegiance to the United State of America, its Constitution and Bill of Rights, or its people.

Application after application, asking for injunctive relief to stop the forward march to what would result in a Constitutional crisis, was requested of the United States Supreme Court, only to be denied to the last one, irrespective of merit, irrespective of the impending Constitutional crisis that would result were this impostor sworn in as president of the United States.

The people ask, “Is the Constitution not important to the United States Supreme Court that it would so easily deny these applications for injunctive relief?”

Leading up to January 20, 2009, people across this nation filed lawsuits in the hopes of preserving the integrity of our United States Constitution, of avoiding the Constitutional crisis resulting from having an ineligible usurper as president and commander-in-chief of the United States.

To date, not one of those lawsuits has been given the benefit of trial on merit. Before the fact, they have been dismissed on the basis of “standing”; after the fact, they have been dismissed as “moot.”

The people are aggrieved at the continued failure of the courts of the United States to uphold the United States Constitution. The aggrieved are being given no justice and no resolution to this abhorrent usurpation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution.

Writs of certiorari filed at the United States Supreme Court have been denied, time and again, without comment; the merits of those writs totally ignored.

That the United States Supreme Court so cavalierly dismisses this matter of grave importance to the efficacy of the United States Constitution without justification, without cause, and with total disregard of the affront to the United States Constitution, is abhorrent.

The people ask, “Why?”

By all appearance, the United States Constitution is of far greater important to the people of this nation than to the United States Supreme Court whose very existence and authority derives from that document.

On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Justices, absent Justice Alito, met in private, in secrecy with Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama at the invitation of Chief Justice John G Roberts. This meeting can only be viewed as an ex parte communication between the Supreme Court Justices and Soetoro. Not only was this a violation of the cannons of judicial conduct but to do this, in the face of the fact that Soetoro a/k/a Obama is a defendant in cases before the Supreme Court, is nothing short of judicial misconduct.


In light of the many cases before the Supreme Court concerning the question of eligibility of Soetoro to the office of president, every Justice of the Supreme Court had an ethical obligation to recuse themselves from any involvement in the inaugural swearing in of Soetoro, to ensure no inappropriate contact with Soetoro that would give any appearance of partisanship or prejudice.

Plaintiff attorney Orly Taitz filed at the Supreme Court a request that all judges honor their obligation of recusal; her request was ignored.

That the United States Supreme Court Justices willfully choose this path is to mock the rule of law, ethical conduct, any appearance of judicial neutrality, and any standard of acceptable decorum.

The people are aggrieved and ask, “For whom does the Supreme Court work, the government or the people?”

By all appearances, and certainly by the charade put on by the Supreme Court with regard to the question of Soetoro’s eligibility to the office of president, it appears the Supreme Court has become nothing more than the legal arm of the federal government, taking its orders and doing the biding of the powerful elite who form the shadow government of this country and that seek to destroy this country in the name of global governance; to the same people to whom Soetoro is nothing more than a puppet.

The people have, for the past six months, requested an answer regarding the lawful right of a man to the presidency whom they believe a usurper by virtue that he is not a natural born citizen. That request has fallen on deaf ears to the detriment of rule of law.

Does the United States Supreme Court believe Soetoro above the law by virtue of who he is? If so, what does that say about rule of law, equal access and equal justice under the law?

Is the United States Supreme Court so comfortable in its position that it believes its existence and authority do not hinge on its strict adherence to the rule of law as set down by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Does the United States Supreme Court believe its rightful due the respect of the American people when it makes a mockery of the rule of law as established by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights; when it makes a mockery of the very institution in which it is housed?

The people ask, “If the United States Supreme Court continues to refuse to address this issue in the face of overwhelming evidence of ineligibility, what does that say about the continued existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and what avenue of redress of grievance is left the people of this nation?”

Did our forefathers fight the War of Independence so this country could reach such a point of judicial indifference to rule of law that a usurper could be allowed to sit at the helm of government without challenge?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Was the blood of our forefathers shed for naught?

The Founding Fathers of this nation, in Congress, July 4, 1776, “with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

Are the American people, bound by the freedom gained at such great price, obliged to do any less?

� 2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site:











The people ask, “Is the Constitution not important to the United States Supreme Court that it would so easily deny these applications for injunctive relief?”