Category Archives: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al, Standing v US Constitution, First amendment rights, Legalese cited to perpetuate legalese

Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al, Standing v US Constitution, First amendment rights, Legalese cited to perpetuate legalese

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”…First Amendment US Constitution

From  Birther Report January 17, 2011.

“Government files their motion to dismiss in Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al.. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Nicholas Purpura and Donald Laster of the Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots and the New Jersey Tea Party Coalition. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Colts Neck Tea Party, Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots, Jackson Tea Party Patriots, Bayshore Tea Party Group and Ocean County Citizens for Freedom. The lawsuit alleges the healthcare bill is unconstitutional on 15 separate counts including Obama’s ineligibility. Full brief embedded below. More background on the case can be found here. The lead plaintiffs discuss their lawsuit here, the video is also embedded at bottom of this post.

The government argues the plaintiffs lack standing and the court does not have jurisdiction…”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/government-files-motion-to-dismiss-in.html

Notice from the Table of Authorities:

“Kerchner v. Obama,
612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010)”
“Lightfoot v. United States,
564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009)”

They are attempting to use legalese, “standing”, applied in earlier cases to substantiate further legalese and thus attempt to trump the First Amendment and effectively block attempts to redress government for grievances by petition.

Advertisements

Dr Orly Taitz, Update, January 11, 2010, Captain Pamela Barnett et al V Barack Hussein Obama lawsuit, Not been heard on the merits, No discovery has been granted, Quo Warranto

Just in a few minutes ago from Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney in Captain Pamela Barnett, et al V Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and    President of the Senate.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078 
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
 
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,                           §
                        Plaintiffs,                                     §
                                                                            §
              v.                                                           §        Civil Action:
                                                                            §
Barack Hussein Obama,                                     §        SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama,                                        §         REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,      §        MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,             §        MOTION FOR LEAVE OF  
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and                  §        COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate,                                      §        WARRANTO
Defendants.                                                         §
 
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
 
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President  Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”.  The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options:  A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of  Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
 
     The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received.  Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.       
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 
I.   What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? – Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
 
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
 
III.          Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
 
IV.          Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
 
V.           Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
 
VI.          Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
 
VII.        Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
 
VIII.       Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
 
IX.          Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
 
X.           To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
 
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
 
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America  against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.  The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama  has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United  States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
 
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father   as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen. 
 
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility  never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
 
          The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
 
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not  his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president. 
 
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another.  The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
 
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought  against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
 
 
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
 for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.:  949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
 
 
 
PROOF OF SERVICE
 
     I, the undersigned Orly Taitz,  hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
 
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
 AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
 
/s/Orly Taitz
 
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Orly Taitz, KY officials, Esquire article, August 11, 2009, Obama not eligible, Oath of office, US Constitution, YouTube video, KY Attorney General, Kentucky Secretary of State

Whether it’s Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo or any American citizen, we deserve the protection of the US Constitution and Government officials that recognize their duty under the law. I am fed up with government officials and the MSM disregarding the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land and belittling law abiding US Citizens.
From an Esquire article dated August 11, 2009:

“What Really Happens When You Demand the President Produce His Birth Certificate?
Buzz up!You get a bunch of outrageous people — very nice people, mind you, but frustrated enough to believe anything about Obama — storming the offices of the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the FBI. At the center of it all was Esquire.com’s political columnist, bearing witness to the “birthers” for the conclusion of a two-part series.”

“Then there’s Orly Taitz, queen of the “birthers,” who brings outrageous thinking to a whole new level. This was her at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Kentucky, which I touched on here last week, well before the town-hall tirades took over the airwaves. This was her four months ago, shouting over the gunfire in a thin, shrill voice:

“I am extremely concerned about Obama specifically because I was born in Soviet Union, so I can tell that he is extremely dangerous. I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?”

At the “birther” booth, Taitz greeted her fans.”

“I made a date to accompany Taitz and a group of “birthers” on a trip the next day to the state capital, where they were going to meet the attorney general and demand an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. A few minutes later, the man standing in the booth and passing out flyers — Carl Swennson, a computer store owner from Georgia — addressed the gathering crowd. “All right, everybody! If you are from Kentucky and you would like to be a part of a common-law jury to try and indict the usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, all you need to do is step forward and we will hold court here today, right now!””

“We set off in a flotilla of cars. When we got to the state office complex an hour later, it took less than ten minutes for us to get badges and pass through security. A man named George Wilding, the manager of Kentucky’s Public Corruption Unit, led us to a conference room. A few minutes later, we were joined by Bob Foster, Kentucky’s Commissioner of Criminal Investigations.

Then Taitz began to talk, and she did not stop for 15 solid minutes: Obama forged this and his campaign forged that and these are his false addresses and here’s something very strange that Justice Scalia told her at a book signing and here are the 500,000 signatures collected by WorldNetDaily magazine demanding an investigation…

Finally Wilding held up a hand. “Let me just stop you right there. What applies to Kentucky?”

One of the citizens starts showing him documents. “This is clearly his school record that shows that he was a citizen of Indonesia…”

“I don’t understand what that has to do with the Kentucky attorney general’s office,” Wilding repeated.

“He was on the ballot here in Kentucky,” Taitz said.

“That was a federal election. There are federal-election laws. The FBI investigates those. So I believe that your best venue and jurisdiction lies with the U.S. district court and the FBI.”

That’s when Taitz lost it. “I can see that you are hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing,” she said, eyes flaring. “You want to pass the buck.”

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

“I’m going to the FBI and not only reporting Obama, I’m going to report you for refusing to investigate crimes. You have a duty to investigate those crimes! Why are people paying salary for this whole office of attorney general of Kentucky?

To do nothing?”

“I think we’re finished,” Foster said.”

“But Taitz wasn’t finished. She marched her troops straight over to the secretary of state’s office and did the exact same presentation all over again. Then she headed to the FBI to do it a third time. And the whole time, she never stopped talking:”
“But like I said — and this is important to emphasize — all of Taitz’s followers seemed like very nice people. Even Taitz had her good side on the rare occasions when she stopped talking for long enough that it could come out. I saw it when she talked about her three sons, or joked about how glad her husband was to get her out of the house. But there was fear and sadness in all of the “birthers,” and a sense that things were surely coming to an end. And they were willing to believe anything bad that anybody said about Obama, no matter how or implausible or unfair.

It was pus exploding from a wound.”

Esquire article:

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birth-certificate-update-081109 

After I read the article and discerned the attitude of the KY officials, I had had it from the jackasses. So I decided to review KY law and I quickly put up a YouTube video. The attitudes of elected officials and judges in this country  increasingly sickens me.

The US Constitution rules.

Kentucky oath of office administered to Secretary of State:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Secretary of State according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

Quote from jackass above:

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

From the Kentucky Statutes:

“118.176 Challenging good faith of candidate.
(1) A “bona fide” candidate means one who is seeking nomination in a primary or election in a general election according to law.”

“(2) The bona fides of any candidate seeking nomination or election in a primary or general election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to vote for such candidate or by an opposing candidate by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides.”

“118.195 Inspection of nomination papers.
All nomination papers filed under KRS 118.165 and 118.365 shall at all times be subject to inspection by any person.”

“118.305 Persons entitled to have name on ballot — Certification of names of candidates — Eligibility of candidates defeated in primary — Notification of vacancy in elective office.

(6) The names of candidates for President and Vice President shall be certified in lieu of certifying the names of the candidates for presidential electors.”

118.325 Nomination by parties by convention or primary election.

(2) The certificate of nomination by such a convention or primary election shall be in writing, shall contain the name of each person nominated, his residence and the office to which he is nominated, and shall designate a title for the party or principle that such convention or primary election represents, together with any simple figure or device by which its list of candidates may be designated on the voting machines. The certificate shall be signed by the presiding officer and secretary of the convention, or by the chairman and secretary of the county, city, or district committee, who shall add to their signatures their respective places of residence, and acknowledge the same before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths. A certificate of the acknowledgment shall be appended to the certificate of nomination. In the case of electors of President and Vice President of the United States the certificate of nomination shall state the names of the candidates of the party for President and Vice President.”

Here is a really interesting paragraph:
“118.581 Nomination of candidates by State Board of Elections.
The State Board of Elections shall convene in Frankfort on the second Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary. At the meeting required by this section, the board shall nominate as presidential preference primary candidates all those candidates of the political parties for the office of President of the United States who have qualified for matching federal campaign funds. Immediately upon completion of this requirement, the board shall transmit a list of all the nominees selected to the Secretary of State and shall also release the list to the news media.
Effective: July 14, 1992″

118.591 Nomination of candidate by petition — Qualification of candidate through filing of notice of candidacy.

(5) In lieu of the petition requirements of subsections (1) to (4) of this section, a candidate may qualify to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party by filing with the Secretary of State, no later than the last Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary, a notice of candidacy signed by the candidate and either of the following:

(b) Evidence that, by the filing deadline, the candidate’s name is qualified to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party in at least twenty (20) other states.”

“118.995 Penalties.
(1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 118.136 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) If the Secretary of State violates any of the provisions of subsection (4) of KRS 118.215, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
(3) Any person who violates subsection (5) of KRS 118.176 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) If any county clerk violates any of the provisions of subsection (5) of KRS 118.305, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Effective: July 13, 1990”

“119.285 Irregularity or defect in conduct of election no defense.
Irregularities or defects in the mode of convening or conducting an election shall constitute no defense to a prosecution for a violation of the election laws.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but there may be some grey area in KY law regarding presidential elections.

However, the US Constitution rules

Orly Taitz, Update, April 13, 2009, Dr. Taitz new website, Defend our Freedoms, San Antonio TX tea party, FBI, Citizens Grand Jury

I just got off the phone with Dr. Orly Taitz. We spoke for a while about her website and the recent controversy. Dr. Taitz has a new website for Defend Our Freedoms.

http://repubx.com/

Orly stated that Defend our Freedoms is her foundation and that she has been blocked from accessing her data on the previous website. She is still committed to the cause of exposing the truth about Barack Obama.

We also spoke about the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts and law clerk Danny Bickell. She and I are both concerned that Bickell is still employed at the Supreme Court after all of the shady dealings that she and other attorneys experienced from Danny Bickell.

Dr. Orly Taitz will attend the San Antonio, TX tea party and stated she will be willing to stay an extra day if enough citizens are willing to meet with the local FBI office and initiate a Citizens Grand Jury. She also stated that her expenses are very high. Every time that she travels she spends at least a thousand dollars. She is providing her services pro bono, so it is not asking too much for people to donate to the cause to help with expenses.

Dr. Orly Taitz new site:

http://repubx.com/

God bless Orly Taitz

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, Dr Taitz confronts Justice Roberts, March 21, 2009, YouTube video, University of Idaho, Bellwood lecture, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen

Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.

Read more from Dr. Orly Taitz:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Rollye James interview, Obama’s Identity, Obama’s Money, Scotus Tampering, US Supreme Court, YouTube videos

Rollye James interview of Dr. Orly Taitz
March 17, 2009

Orly Taitz intro

Obama’s Identity

Obama’s Money

Scotus Tampering I

Scotus Tampering II

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Orly Taitz interview, Sunday, March 22, 2009, Radio interview, Quo Warranto, Obama ineligible, usapatriots-shout radio, Mieke and Therese show, Keyes lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Defending Our Freedoms Foundation

Just in:

“Mieke and Therese hosts of USAPatriots-shout, a blog talk radio program, share information that is rarely broadcast on main stream media (MSM). We believe the truth supersedes labeling, party affiliations, and “political correctness”.  Join them Sunday night as the great “Opinionators” give you their take on what’s happening with our country! 
 
Mark your calender
 you don’t want to miss this broadcast
 
Blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
Sunday night (03-22-09)  8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
 
 
We are proud and honored to welcome DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
Topic is:
QUO WARRANTO
 
What ON EARTH is QUO WARRANTO?
WILL QUO WARRANTO BE THE METHOD TO MAKE OBAMA PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR FORCE HIM TO STEP DOWN? 
 
Discover the answers to these and more questions this Sunday evening on blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout with Dr. Taitz
 
If you haven’t discovered Dr. Taitz, yet, you are in for a treat.  Those of you who have been following her heroic efforts will also have the opportunity to call and ask her questions.
 
 
“Dr. Orly Taitz, the principal attorney behind the Keyes lawsuit, was born in the Former Soviet Union. Dr. Taitz escaped from the FSU over 20 years ago to begin a life of freedom in the United States. Dr. Taitz has a successful dentistry practice in Orange County, California, and is a licensed attorney and real estate agent. Dr. Taitz speaks five languages. Dr. Taitz’ experiences under the totalitarian Communist regime convinced her that this is a path that she would rather not see the United States take. Therefore, Orly is committed to doing everything in her power to prevent such a disastrous mistake, and to defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States under the Constitution. Dr. Taitz has filed a second lawsuit associated with the Obama Eligibility Crisis that is currently before the Supreme Court and is working on a third lawsuit featuring active duty and retired military as plaintiffs. With Dr. Taitz’ help, Orly’s Keyes lawsuit has been successfully cloned in Florida and in Washington State, where other complaints are active. Dr. Taitz has just filed application for a foundation to carry on this work entitled the “Defending Our Freedoms Foundation”. “
 
New site launch: http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Country: United States
 
www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout this Sunday evening, March 22,  2009 between 8 and 10 pm Pacific Standard Time.  You may call 646-727-3865 to ask questions.
 
 What a great opportunity to call in or write and share and discuss these issues!
 
You can write to the chat room at www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
 call 646-727-3865
You can also post comments at
 
www.blogtalkradio.usapatriots-shout
or usapatriots-shout.blogspot.com”