Tag Archives: Dr. Orly Taitz

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

Lyle J. Rapacki, PHD, FBI InfraGard, March 16, 2009, White Paper Discussion, Dr. Orly Taitz, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, Barack Obama not eligible, US Attorney General, US Army Officer, constitutional crisis, civil unrest

From Dr. Orly Taitz:

“NOTE from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation Staff.

The below report states: “if Mr Obama fights unsealing his documentation…there will be civil unrest unleashed on the streets”

InfraGrad has a Public Private Partnership with the FBI.  The PPP programs has been leveraged heavily from local to

international levels to render entities back into Panopolies. The term panopoly was coined by Joseph Borkin, chief

economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice circa 1943, during his investigations of

I.G. Farben because the aggregation of businesses were much larger than a monopoly or cartel.

 

 

LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.

Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment

Vice President of Protective Services

_______

 

Diplomate:                                                                                                                        Reply:

American Academy of Forensic Counselors                                                                              Southwest Risk Advisors, Inc.

American Psychotherapy Association                                                                                        Post Office Box 1595

                                                                                                                                                          Chandler, Arizona  85244

Licensed Investigator                                                                                                                    Telecommunications:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent                                                                              1-866-481-7712 – office

Information Warfare Analyst                                                                                                       480-440-5930 – cell

ASIS – Phoenix Chapter Membership Chair                                                                             LRapacki1@Hotmail.com                                                                       

FBI InfraGard  Arizona                                                                                                               

 

 

Memorandum:  WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

 

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

NOT CLASSIFIEDPUBLIC DISSEMINATION

 

March the 16th, 2009

 

Statement of Purpose:

The content of this White Paper is deliberately intended to stimulate thought and discussion.  Informational analysis comprising global security, national security of the United States of America, socio-political-economic forces as a dimension to national security, culture, freedom in human rights, defense and the rule of law are considered within the framework of this treatise.

 

Overview:

Beginning as campaign rhetoric, the question of Barak Obama’s legal status as a citizen of the United States of America qualified to serve as President, is moving toward a crescendo that might be heard formally by the United States Supreme Court.  Downplayed by many, including U.S. Senators on the Republican side and even Senators serving on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as late as Friday of last week, a significant meeting occurred last Thursday, March 12th in Idaho.  The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was speaking before a large audience (800 in attendance, including the President of the Idaho State Bar Association) on the character of Abraham Lincoln, when attorney Orly Taitz of Mission Viejo, California came to the microphone and asked the Chief Justice if he would personally review a legal brief and a complaint signed by over 325,000 American citizens as to the Constitutionality of Barak Obama’s swearing-in as President.  Chief Justice Roberts personally agreed to review the legal brief and the complaint saying such in front of the audience. 

_______

 

Motions to be heard on this critical Constitutional matter have been dismissed already, or not even accepted by courts in many states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Washington, Texas, North Carolina to name a few. But the issue will not go away; it is morphing now to include active members of the Armed Forces serving in “Hot Zones” or theatres of combat.  The legal motion handed

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page two

_______

 

to the Chief Justice warns: “If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in the Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office.”      

 

Just prior to this meeting, attorney Taitz sent Certified Correspondence on February 27th to the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, Congressional and Senatorial Judiciary Committee, et.al. with the stated purpose “demand for investigation and immediate action in regards suspected crimes” identified as, but not limited to: impersonation of a military officer, libel, defamation of character, harassment, interference with judicial proceedings, breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States, forgery, using cyberspace for voter fraud.  Military officers from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces have joined in this action as Plaintiffs.  Among the petitioners are:  Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, U.S. Army now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tenn. State Rep. Frank Nicely and others.

 

One of the “and others” is Harry Riley, a veteran who spent a significant time serving in the Pentagon.  This former officer said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow “the trashing” of their Constitution.  Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution.  The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis.  How can an individual become the Commander-in-Chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?”

 

The complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney General (now in the hands of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) requests relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court.”  This legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president.  This is the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.  This legal right established in British common law 800 years ago and was recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. 

 

The complaint further states: “As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009.  Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications.  Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed to qualify per U.S. Constitution; articles II and I; amendment XX paragraph 3.”    

_______

 

What follows is the Summary of the complaint filed by Orly Taitz, attorney in Mission Viejo, California.  As you can imagine, the complaint is thorough and long.  I have replicated sufficient

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

passages so not to diminish the nature, spirit, scope or details of the complaint but conscious of time to read and length, I compiled the salient points in this complaint to save you from reading the 78 page document.  I will further attest that Exhibits and articles of proof were also attached to the documents I reviewed.  I will further attest the investigator working this case for attorney Taitz is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of California for the past twenty-five years, and prior to this, served twenty years as a Detective at New Scotland Yard.  I will further attest that I have reviewed documents containing additional names not previously mentioned. Some of the names are active military and others are retired at Lt. Col. and above rank.

 

Should it be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid.  If, however, this case continues and Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there are growing concerns of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation.  The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a “flashpoint” that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security.

_______

 

Summary of the Complaint submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.:

“Recently an active U.S. Army Officer, who is risking his life in defending our country in Iraq, joined my (attorney Taitz) legal action aimed at unsealing Barack Hussein Obama’s, aka Barry Soetoro’s, (Obama/Soetoro) legal status and eligibility/legitimacy for presidency of the U.S.  The president needs to be a ‘natural born citizen – one who is born in the country to parents (plural, both) who are citizens of this country.

 

This definition was recently unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in Senate resolution 511, presented by Senator Leahy in April 2008, as Senator McCain sought his legitimacy for the presidency to be verified, and Mr. McCain therefore presented his long version original birth certificate.

 

Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen; he was a citizen of Kenya here in the U.S. on a student visa, which by itself made Obama/Soetoro ineligible for presidency, regardless of whether he was born in this country or Kenya, or whether he later lost his U.S. citizenship while immigrating to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship (by being adopted and naturalized), and later reaffirming his Indonesian citizenship while traveling on a Indonesian passport as an adult, and also most likely obtaining taxpayer funded financial aid as a Foreign Exchange student from Indonesia (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and any U.S. citizenship would therefore have to be relinquished).  Additionally, Obama/Soetoro’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, and the Ambassador from Kenya,

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

Peter Ogego, made statements that he was born in Kenya, and there is no record of him being born in any hospital in Hawaii.  HI Statute #338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth (COLB), and those can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only.

 

Additionally, Forensic Document expert Sandra Line has issued an affidavit that Obama’s place of birth cannot be ascertained without reviewing the original birth certificate.  Dr. Chiymoi Fukimo, director of Health Department for the State of Hawaii, issued a statement that Obama has a birth certificate on file, but intentionally refused to provide clarification, whether it is a birth certificate for a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, whether it was prepared based on hospital records or statement of one relative only, or whether it is an amended birth certificate, created upon Obama/Soetoro’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro, his Indonesian stepfather, and showing him a citizen of Indonesia. 

 

There are forensic questions raised about the short version Certification of Life Birth posted by Obama/Soetoro on his web site; lacking corroborating evidence such as name of the hospital, name of the doctor, three signatures and a seal on the front of the document.

 

Similarly, Obama/Soetoro supporters used Cyber space previously, in order to misinform and defraud American citizens and commit voter fraud.  On November 3rd, a day before the National elections, when numerous voters questioned Obama/Soetoro’s Natural Born status and his refusal to provide his long version birth certificate, an article appeared on the Internet stating that a Virginia Judge reviewed Obama/Soetoro’s original birth certificate and found it to be valid, Obama/Soetoro to be a Natural Born citizen, and all legal actions to be frivolous (Exhibit).  This whole case was manufactured, and Cyber space was used, to defraud American citizens….

 

I am also requesting an investigation into the financial dealings of Barack and Michele Obama.  Please see attached list of over 100 addresses for Barack Obama and a 100 business addresses for Michele Obama.  These are addresses obtained from a private investigator and an intelligence service.  Obama/Soetoro’s addresses are connected to numerous different social security numbers.  None of the 130 positions listed for Michelle and Barry or Barack H. Obama were listed on their disclosed tax returns.  There has to be a corresponding search for each and every employer that is listed.  If those are salaried positions then, there is massive tax fraud.  And if those were campaign contributions over the allowed limits then, there is massive campaign contributions fraud, especially in light of over $300 million in

 

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page four

_______

 

contributions that are unaccounted for.  Which is it?  What social security numbers were used? 

 

As you stated in your speech on Martin Luther King Day, Americans should not be ‘cowards’, particularly when matters of race are concerned.  I was not a coward and prepared this large dossier, so I hope you will not be a coward and instead order an expeditious completion of this investigation and its subsequent prosecution.”

 

Conclusion:

Accompanying this complaint is a petition calling for an appointment of a special prosecutor similar to the one appointed during Watergate.  The fact that Obama has not ordered Hawaiian officials to release the document leaves doubt as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists.  Similar concerns exist in Mr. Obama’s refusal to release student records from Occidental College in the early 80’s where he may have been a student under the name of Barry Soetero, attending the college on aid for foreign students.

 

The action handed to the Chief Justice is on behalf 120 military officers, many of high rank, and 9 state representatives.  Purportedly the room was stunned and silent as attorney Taitz and Chief Justice Roberts engaged in an extremely brief exchange regarding these charges which led to the oral promise made by the Chief Justice to review them.    

 

 

 

( END OF REPORT )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent

Information Warfare Analyst

FBI InfraGardArizona

 

0100 Hrs. m.s.t.”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.org

 

            

Lightfoot v Bowen, Dr Orly Taitz, Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, March 12, 2009, Application For Emergency Stay AND/OR Injunction, Gail Lightfoot, Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California

From Dr. Orly Taitz, March 12, 2009:

“No. 08A524
In The
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 
Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley
 
 
v.
 
 
Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California
 
 
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
 
 
Orly Taitz, DDS.
Attorney for the Petitioners
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411
 
TO: THE HONORABLE  JOHN J. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE                                 
Motion to Reconsider
Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:
The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009.
The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.
On January 8, 2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by the Congress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requesting this Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to the terms of the Constitution.
 According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timely according to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequent confirmation of Congress.
The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided.
Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21,  2009, one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone  prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases.  However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased,  This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.
 Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, that the case never disappeared.  However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date. 
Further, a few days before hearing this petition in the conference of the full Supreme Court, eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices had a private closed door meeting with Mr. Obama, who was a party of interest and subject of this petition, wherein there may have been ex parte communication that prejudiced the petitioners.
Further, on March 9,  2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs.
At a reception held in Los Angeles, California , on March 9th, Justice Scalia has told the audience of some 300 attorneys, members of the media, business and entertainment industries, that the cases are heard in the Supreme Court based on importance. He reiterated that it is not the beauty of the argument and legal reasoning, but importance of the case.
The instant case, dealing with a fundamental Constitutional question, affecting each and every citizen of these United States, in alleging a complete lack of legitimacy in the presidency of Barack Obama is a question of great public importance.
  It was supposedly heard by the full conference of nine justices on January 23rd and yet, the Justices did not think this issue to be important enough to forward to the next step, to the open court for argument on the merits of the case.
At the same time it was announced on the radio that the Supreme Court has heard a case dealing with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco industry; and two Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have written lengthy opinions on this issue.
 The undersigned reiterates that at issue is the probable illegal usurpation of our highest elected office by a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama.
Were these allegations the case, and taken true as pled for the purposes of this Motion, any party illegally usurping the position of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all the US Armed forces and assuming control of our nuclear arsenal would be in a position to devastate not only the United States but the world.
The  only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.
21.             Attached hereto and incorporated by reference  is a letter from the magazine World Net Daily, showing that 326,841 American Citizens have signed the petition to hear this matter. Aside from the petition, World Net Daily has delivered to the Supreme Court 540,000 individual form petitions: 60,000 for each Justice, times nine. Additionally, it is estimated that some 100,000 Americans have faxed or mailed petitions drafted by themselves, not form petitions. This means that each Justice should have heard from roughly  half a million American citizens, urging them to hear this case on the merits. While undersigned counsel questioned Justice Scalia during above mentioned book signing in Los Angeles, as to what happened, why the case was not forwarded to the open court hearing on the merits, he had absolutely no clue about the case, not this, nor similar cases by Wrotnowski and Donofrio. It is astounding that the Justice would get letters from half a million American citizens, urging him to hear the case on the merits, and wouldn’t remember one thing about the case. Again, the only reasonable explanation is that the clerks have never shown the Justices either this case Lightfoot v Bowen or letters from half a million American citizens supporting this issue. Due to the fact, that above mentioned became known to the under signed counsel only on March 9th 2009, a motion for reconsideration is filed at this late date due to special circumstances. 
22.             Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States,  FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.
23.             At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.
 
Attachments
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE  2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS WITH REQUEST THAT APPLICATION BE TREATED AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION. Filed December 11th, 2008.
SUGGESTION FOR RECUSAL OF HONORABL E CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY. Filed January 12th 2009.
SUPPLEMENT, MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT UNDER US CONSTITUITON ARTICLE 2, §1, AND AMENDMENT20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) AND (4). Duly filed January 15, 2009, not docket and not distributed to the Justices due to the refusal by clerk Bickel.
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR EMEGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS. Supplement is based on the Executive Order by President Bush, issued January16, 2009. EXECUTIVE ORDER; GRANTING RECIPROCITY ON EXCEPTED SERVICES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FITNESS AND REINVESTIGATING INDIVIDUALS IN POSITIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST.  Filed January 21, 2009. 
Petition letter from World Net Daily to the Supreme Court signed by 326,841 American citizens.
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”
 
___________________________, March 12, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/motion-to-reconsider-lightfoot-v-bowen.aspx

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, TN State Representative, Eric Swafford, Tennessee, Dr Orly Taitz, Eric Swafford plaintiff, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible

From Dr. Orly Taitz website, Defend our Freedoms Foundation:

 

“DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US

First State Representative Joins Action!

Representative Eric Swafford of Tennessee has agreed to be a Plaintiff in a legal action of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ to demand that Barack Obama proves his eligibility.

Download a copy of Representative Swafford’s consent form and bring it to your representatives today and insist they join in this action.

Representative Swafford proposed bill for Tennessee’s soveignty yesterday.

More States are expected to follow soon.”

Read more here:

http://defendourfreedoms.us

LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE, January 26, 2009, US Supreme Court, Stay denied, Chief Justice, John Roberts, Dr. Orly Taitz

** Update Below **

Dr. Orly Taitz’ Application for stay in Lightfoot Vs Bowen
has been denied by the US Supreme Court:
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009
CERTIORARI — SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

08A524
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice
and referred to the Court is denied.

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/012609zor.pdf

Thanks to Zach for the heads up.

** UPDATE from DR. Orly Taitz **

For immediate press release
01.26.09.
Dear fellow Americans and Patriots,
as you probably know, in my case Lightfoot v Bowen I filed a petition for emergency stay and asked it to be treated as a writ of certiorari based on Bush v Gore 2000 precedent. The Supreme Court has logged this petition as an application for stay pending filing a writ of certiorari. Since they denied the emergency petition today, it gives me an opportunity to file immediately the actual Writ of Certiorari and it will be done within a few days.
However, a number of things have transpired lately.
First, an exparte private closed door meeting between 8 out of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court (Justice Samuel Alito was not present) with Mr. Barry Soetoro-Barack Hussein Obama. I will file a motion to the Chief Jastice to compel the records of this private meeting, that was held only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard, where the plaintiffs state that Mr. Soetoro-Obama is illegitimate for presidency due to the fact that his father was a foreign subject and there is no evidence that Mr. Obama was really born in Hawaii, since the state of Hawaii statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian certification of live birth and such certification can be obtained based on an affidavit of one relative only. In spite of 32 legal actions filed around the country, Mr. Soetoro-Obama refused to provide his original birth certificate that is sealed in Hawaii, no hospital in Hawaii could find any records of Mr. Obama ever being born there and affidavits were given by a number of parties in Kenya, stating that he was born in Kenya. We believe that Mr. Obama has spent over $800,000 on numerous attorneys to keep his original birth certificate sealed, because the original vault birth certificate does not provide any corroborating evidence from any hospital about him being born there.
Additionally, Mr. Obama has immigrated to Indonesia as a child with his mother and step-father Lolo Soetoro and his school records from Indonesia show his legal name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia. Due to the fact that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Mr. Soetoro -Obama’s parents had to relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain his Indonesian Citizenship. There is ample evidence that Mr. Soetoro-Obama has travelled on his Indonesian passport up to the time he became US Senator, whereby he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult.
The swearing of Mr. Obama is null and void due to the fact that he was sworn in on a name that is not legally his name and he is a foreign subject from birth and now and never qualified as a Natural Born US Citizen
On Wednesday, January the 21st, when the Supreme Court reopened for business after inauguration, somebody deleted from the external docket all information about my case. Millions of people around the country and around the world watched that docket. A number of concerned parties have called the Supreme Court and got no explanation. Other cases were on the docket. Finally, information about my case was re-entered on the docket. I will be demanding from the Chief Justice John Roberts an immediate full investigation, as to how the information about a case of National and World importance, dealing with Mr Soetoro- Obama’s illegitimacy for Presidency, disappeared from the docket of the Supreme Court. Incidentally an article about me and the cases I am handling, has disappeared from the Wikipedia. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the Congressional and Senatorial Judicial committees for full investigation and hearing as well as FBI and US attorney’s offices.
I would ask all of the citizens that observed this disappearing and reappearing of information on the docket of SCOTUS to write affidavits to that extend. Please go to the nearest UPS store. They usually have notary public on the premises. Have your signature notarised and have the affidavit scanned and e-mailed to me.
Watergate investigation started with a small hotel braking. Obamagate Congressional and Senatorial investigation will start with this breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States and illegal deletion of all the information about my case from the external public docket.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
drorly.blogspot.com
Read more here:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/urgent-need-affidavits-for-motion-to.html

Lightfoot v. Bowen, California lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Dr. Orly Taitz, Petition for Extraordinary Writ for Mandamus for Stay, Gail Lightfoot, Vice Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, co-Plaintiffs, Electors, Constitution Party, December 3, 2008

There is a new lawsuit before the California Supreme Court:

“Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Lightfoot v. Bowen: A new lawsuit
 
Today, December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen. This is a “Petition for Extraordinary Writ for Mandamus for Stay”.

Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will either issue an emergency stay of the voting of the electors, or decline to hear the case because it is a federal issue. Either way, Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will make this pronouncement in a timely manner.

Anyone who is concerned about this issue and wishes to express their concern to the court can do so:

Interested parties cab contact the California Supreme Court by phone

213 830 7570 Main court number in Los Angeles

415-865-7060 (Chief Justice Ronald M. George in San Francisco)

(415) 865-7000 Main court number in San Francisco

or by FAX

415 865 7183 Main FAX number in San Francisco

to express their concern that this complaint be looked at in a timely matter.”

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/lightfoot-v-bowen-new-lawsuit.html

Here is the core of the allegations:

lightfootbo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View the entire Petition here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1481