`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`CHLORIS C. HALL,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AUTHOR SOLUTION, ET. AL,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
`the United States Court of Appeals for
`the Seventh Circuit
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR REHEARING
`
`RECEIVED
`FEB 1 1 2020
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT U:S:
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`2
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`3
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... 3
`
`PETITION FOR REHEARING
`4
`PETITION FOR REHEARING ...................................................................................... 4
`
`CONCLUSION
`6
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
`7
`CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH ..................................................................... 7
`
`CERTIFICATE FOR RULE 44.2
`7
`CERTIFICATE FOR RULE 44.2 ........................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Chloris C. Hall v. Lee Daniels Et. AL, No 1:18-cv-01349 ( 7th Dis. 2018)
`
`Chloris C. Hall v. Author Solution Et. AL, No 18-3520 ( 7th Cir. 2019)
`
`Chloris C. Hall v. Author Solution Et. AL, No 19-6542 ( Sup US Ct . 2020)
`
`Williams v. Gaye, No. 15-56880 (9th Cir. 2018)
`Rules
`Sup. Ct. R. 44.2
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 1...
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 7
`
`Constitution
`
`Fourteenth amendment., Rights to due process
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
` 4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`4-6
`
`
`
`P1
`
`PETITION FOR REHEARING
`
`Petitioner Chloris C. Hall respectfully asks this Court to grant rehearing of
`
`this Court's January 13, 2020 order, pursuant to Rule 44 of this Court. Chloris C.
`
`Hall v. Author Solution At Al, No. 19-654. This corrected petition for rehearing calls
`
`the Court's attention to a recent development, since the denial of certiorari, that
`
`affects Petitioner's Fourteenth amendment " Rights to due process" question
`
`presented and may have affected the Court's consideration of the case.
`
`On January 13, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rendered a
`
`Denial decision in Chloris C. Hall v. Author Solution ET. AL.
`
`Ms. Hall case, involves the question of whether a Respondent have the rights
`
`to interfere with the Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment " Rights to due process"
`
`beyond a reasonable doubt, by using inside court resources available to the
`
`Respondents to render a denial of the case.
`
`The fact that the Respondents were able to convince the Supreme court of
`
`United States law clerks to send Chloris C. Hall a case to mimic is proof that the
`
`Respondents has been indicating the direction of the Petitioner case by violating her
`
`Fourteenth amendment " Rights to due process."
`
`Petitioner Chloris C. Hall received via priority mail case no. 19-165 Daniel
`
`T. Morgan petitioners v. Sheri A. Morgan Respondent from the Supreme court
`
`of United States law clerks to mimic.
`
`The priority package included a fitted 6 by 9 brown envelop also addressed to
`
`the Petitioners with two booklets inside of the priority mail package that was
`
`4
`
`
`
`also addressed to the Petitioner. 1) a writ of certiorari 2) an appendix inside the
`
`brown envelop by case no. 19-165 Daniel T. Morgan petitioners v. Sheri A.
`
`Morgan.
`
`The Respondent and law clerk assured that the Petitioner case will be
`
`denied by sending her case no. 19-165 Daniel T. Morgan petitioners v. Sheri A.
`
`Morgan to mimic knowing that case no. 19-165 had already been denied by the
`
`Justice.
`
`Petitioner/ Chloris C. Hall writ of certiorari and 19-165 Daniel T. Morgan
`
`petitioners v. Sheri A. Morgan Respondent, both writ of certiorari layouts and
`
`some arguments are exactly the same, because Petitioner/ Chloris C. Hall
`
`mimicked the writ of certiorari that was mailed to her by the law clerks.
`
`Rule 1 Sup. Ct, The Clerk maintains the Court's records and will not
`
`permit any of them to be removed from the Court building except as authorized
`
`by the Court. Any document filed with the Clerk and made a part of
`
`the Court's records may not thereafter be withdrawn from the official
`
`Court files.
`
`Rule 7 Sup. Ct, No law court has the rights to assist a Petitioner as an
`
`attorney by giving her cases to mimic.
`
`The Respondents indicated the exact direction that was used by the
`
`Supreme Court law clerks by violating Chloris C. Hall/Petitioner Fourteenth
`
`amendment " Rights to due process" questioned presented in her writ of
`
`certiorari; by misapplying the Respondents " Illinois guide to civil practice"
`
`5
`
`
`
`that the Respondent wrote to render a denial by the Judge in lower court and
`
`appeal court.
`
`Without the law clerks and Respondents interfering with the Petitioner
`
`Fourteenth Amendment " Right's to Due Process, " Petitioner case presented in
`
`lower court would have won; The Defendants used the exact same tactics
`
`presented in Williams v. Gaye, No. 15-56880 (9th Cir. 2018) by using portions of
`
`Marvin Gayes work and adding their own, which was indeed granted as copyright
`
`infringement by the 9th circuit court, which is also what happened to the Petitioner.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`This Court should reconsider its denial of certiorari in this case and put an
`
`end to Respondents using law Clerks and inside court room resources to
`
`violate a Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment " Rights to due process" by
`
`indicating the direction of a Petitioner case by misapplying the Law and
`
`Rules.
`
`6
`
`Respectfully sub fitted, g j(
`(1 •
`Chloris C. Hall
`
`Petitioner
`
`P.O. Box 436895
`
`Chicago, IL 60643
`
`Ch.hallswork@gmail.com
`
`(708) 631-5715
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER (RULE 44)
`
`As Petitioner of record, Ms. Chloris C. Hall, I hereby certify that this Petition
`
`for Rehearing from denial of certiorari is presented in good faith and not for delay,
`
`and that it is restricted to the grounds specified in Rule 44.2, namely intervening
`
`circumstances of substantial or controlling effect and substantial grounds not
`
`previously presented.
`
`On February 5, 2020
`
`Chloris C. Hall
`
`Petitioner
`
`P.O. Box 436895
`
`Chicago, IL 60643
`
`Ch.hallswork@grnail.corn
`
`(708) 631-5715
`
`7
`
`