throbber
No. 19-6542
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket