Sanctions for A Political Viewpoint Effects All Lawyers
Dr. Orly Taitz to Appeal Federal Sanctions
November 9, 2009
Atlanta:
The sanctions of Dr. Orly Taitz by Judge Land of the US District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia last month should have set off alarm bells
for every public interest attorney in the United States. Dr. Taitz's position
is that she was sanctioned $20,000 not for outrageous behavior but for her
political viewpoints. She has also been a target for the federal judiciary
who have made serious ethical and criminal accusations against her but have
denied her and her clients including former US presidential candidate Alan
Keyes due process on the their claims regarding President Obama's citizenship
and birth certificate. Taitz has spent more than a year researching the Obama
birth certificate issue and is considered a leading expert on the usurper
theory.
Jonathan Levy will be joining Dr. Orly Taitz in her quest for justice as
co-counsel on her appeal of sanctions in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
(Case No. 09-15418 BB).
According to Levy: Orly Taitz has been sanctioned in part for making allusions
to the civil rights movement and to the dangers of the Holocaust in her legal
arguments. It is arbitrary and capricious to make a determination that some
attorneys may invoke historical figures and events while others whose politics
the courts find disagreeable may not. Taitz invoked the name of civil rights
icon Thurgood Marshall in her arguments and was chastised for doing so by
a federal judge, what is next, sanctions for mentioning Gandhi, Stalin, or
George Washington without permission?
Dr. Jonathan Levy is best known for his representation of anti globalist
figures, Chen Shui-bian, former president of the Republic of China, Nzita
Henriques Tiago, president of the Provisional Republic of Cabinda and as
legal advisor to the former Yugoslav president and vice president, Slobadan
Milosevic and Dr. Vojislav Seselj, defense teams at the Hague Tribunal in
addition to his participation in a decade long lawsuit against the Vatican
Bank for post Second World War money laundering of concentration camp gold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Court Cases:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.FIRST
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Defendants-Appellees
(1957). (link)
NEWMAN V. UNITED STATES EX REL. FRIZZELL, 238 U. S. 537 (1915) (link)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion For Reconsideration In Barnett Vs. Obama (link)
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and
Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and motion for reconsideration of
October 29th order under Rule 59E and Rule 60.
A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for
most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor
hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked
for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case,
Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins Coie was one of the firms representing
the defendants in a prior legal action filed by the plaintiffs in this very
case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen
and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama as a
presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn't request any vital records and
never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and all the other secretaries
of states took his Declaration of a Candidate on its face value. As it is
a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most
of the opinions for the judges, the order to dismiss this case was de facto
written or largely influenced by an attorney who until recently worked for
a firm representing the defendant in this case, and who currently is
working as a clerk for the presiding judge, as such most of the order is
tainted by bias. This is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs. While
Mr. Velamoor will surely claim that he didn't work on Obama case before,
his employment with Perkins Coie should've disqualified him, and indeed the
order reads as if it is written by the defense counsel, highly biased against
the plaintiffs, 99 percent of the order either misstates the facts or the
pleadings or oral argument, it misstates the law and is full of personal
attacks, de facto accusing decorated members of the military of being cowards;
and this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a
concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the power
of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel, to
use innuendo, ex parte defamatory and slanderous statements to assassinate
her character, to destroy her as a human being and endanger her law license,
only because she is not only the only attorney brave enough to bring most
of eligibility legal actions, to bring actions from plaintiffs with real
standing, the only one to get any hearings, but she is also the only one
to bring forward evidence from licensed investigators showing Mr. Obama committing
multiple felonies, for which he should be serving lengthy prison term. The
court erred in hiring Mr. Velamoor or in the alternative not recusing himself
from hearing this case.
The plaintiffs request the court to strike from the order unsupported and
prejudicial verbiage. Please see in the attachment Declaration of the undersigned
attorney.
The court has stated in the pleadings that the undersigned attorney has encouraged
her supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence his decision
in the October 5 hearing. This is not true. The plaintiffs request this stricken
from the final order.
During October 5 hearing your honor has stated that the undersigned attorney
encouraged the supporters to attempt to influence the court's decision. This
never happened. When the undersigned attorney requested to respond, the court
stated: 'no, no, it's done. You've put it out there. Now it's your responsibility.
The undersigned attorney has done nothing of a kind and believes that this
information might have come from some ex parte communications with the presiding
judge coming from parties connected to the defense, which is prejudicial,
inflammatory and defamatory. The undersigned requests it stricken from the
order.
The court has included in the order mention of yet another ex-parte communication
with the judge, where two parties claimed that the undersigned counsel has
asked them to perjure themselves. Please see the declaration, this was a
slanderous, defamatory, prejudicial allegation, and the undersigned had no
opportunity to respond.
The undersigned believes that the letters came from Larry Sinclair and Lucas
Smith.
Larry Sinclair was asked to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to the
Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In the affidavit
submitted to the Chicago police and in his book recently published, Mr. Sinclair
has stated that Mr. Donald Young has contacted him repeatedly and stated
that he had a homosexual relationship with Mr. Barack Obama and that Mr.
Young was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds December 23, 2007 at the
onset of 2008 Democratic primary elections. Any allegations of the undersigned
attorney asking the witness to perjure himself are not only completely defamatory
and prejudicial, but are void of any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair's affidavit
regarding Mr. Young's homicide can be found filed with the Chicago PD and
in his book. A copy of the Affidavit of Larry Sinclair and Coroners Certificate
of Death of Donald Young is attached as an Exhibit.
Lucas Smith was asked to authenticate Mr. Barack Obama's birth certificate
from Kenya, which he previously tried to sell on e-bay and which he authenticated
under penalty of perjury both on video camera and in writing. As such any
allegations of suborning perjury are totally defamatory and void of any sense
or reason, since Mr. Smith made this information public long before ever
meeting the undersigned counsel. Therefore any and all allegations of misconduct
by the undersigned are totally without merit, prejudicial and defamatory
and need to be stricken from the order.
The undersigned is the only attorney, who has the bravery of character to
pursue not only the issue of Mr. Obama's illegitimacy to presidency,
but also information provided by two licensed investigators, showing that
according to reputable databases Mr. Obama has used 39 different social security
numbers including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals.
This information is an indication of multiple felonies committed by the sitting
president, and the undersigned believes that she was targeted and defamatory
statements were used in order to keep her silent, to endanger her license
and prevent her from proceeding on the above issues. The undersigned is deeply
concerned about the fact that the court chose to include in the order slanderous
ex-parte communications, while completely ignoring the above evidence against
the defendant, which show a tremendous likelihood of success on a RICO claim.
10. The court has commented on the plaintiffs' inability to file a full pledged
RICO complaint, calling it inexcusable. The court apparently forgot the fact
that the plaintiffs have asked for discovery in order to obtain sufficient
information for complete RICO complaint. The court has denied all requests
for discovery, therefore making it impossible for the plaintiffs to submit
fully pleaded RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs' request discovery in
order to submit a properly plead RICO complaint or in the alternative a leave
of court to file a second amended complaint on RICO cause of action.
11. The court relies on Ashwander vs Tenn Valley, as the reason to assert
that it has no jurisdiction. This is a mistake of fact and a mistake of law.
As Ashwander states "If a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one
involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction
of general law, the Court will decide only the latter." The fact of the matter
is that there is no law or statute that provides definition of the Natural
Born Citizen clause. The defense has argued a definition completely different
from the definition submitted by the plaintiffs, therefore in the absence
of any law or statute providing such definition Aswander actually dictates
that the issue needs to be decided based on the Constitution. Central district
court of California clearly has a right to interpret the Constitution, so
based on the courts own argument the case has to be adjudicated. "With whatever
doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide
it, if it is brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise
of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The
one or the other would be treason to the constitution." Supreme Court justice
John Marshall in Cohen v Virginia 19 US 264 (1821).
12. The undersigned counsel requests the court to strike out of the order
unsupported, prejudicial, demeaning and defamatory language p8, line 22-24
insinuating that the military plaintiffs in this action are cowards and writing:
"The court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as
a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The court has a word for
such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States,
but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve." The undersigned
has submitted to this court a letter from Captain Crawford, Legal Counsel
to Admiral Malin, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, which clearly stated
that the commander in Chief is considered a civilian and there is nothing
military can do regarding his eligibility. Based on this response from the
military the plaintiffs have brought this matter to the Federal court to
ascertain legitimacy and allegiance of the Commander in Chief, who is not
a part of the military. The order completely misstated the complaint and
standing justification. Recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood has given
this question paramount importance. This order has advocated blind obedience
by the members of the military. If someone were to have common sense, brains
and strength of character to challenge allegiance of Nidal Malik Hasan in
court, after he made numerous anti-American and antimilitary statements,
maybe 12 young boys wouldn't be 6 feet under today, maybe 12 mothers and
12 fathers wouldn't had their hearts ripped out of their chests and torn
apart. Similarly, in the oral argument the undersigned counsel didn't bring
rhetoric, but rather she brought valid observations, as she pointed out to
Mr. Obama's actions from the beginning of his rein, when he almost immediately
cut veteran's health benefits by $500 million a year, while giving $900 million
to Gaza, which is governed by a terrorist organization Hamas, which announced
war on the United States of America. She argued that it is important to proceed
with Mr. Obama's eligibility action expeditiously and ascertain his Natural
Born Status and allegiance expeditiously as tremendous harm can be done to
this Nation and this military by one with questionable status and questionable
allegiance. Therefore, the plaintiffs request all of the above language stricken
and the standing reconsidered.
13. The court has misstated the main argument of the case. The court states
that the court has no jurisdiction to remove duly elected president. That
is a complete misinterpretation of the plaintiffs' argument, probably done
by the biased clerk. In reality the whole argument and plea, is for the court
to decide, whether the person residing in the White House is duly elected.
If he got there by virtue of massive fraud, he had no right to be there and
people who voted for him had no right to vote for him. The plaintiffs asked
for the judicial determination, for the declaratory relief. If the court
finds that fraud was committed, then not only Mr. Obama should be criminally
prosecuted, but he will also be liable to about 20 percent of the population
of this country who voted for him and particularly to the ones that contributed
to his campaign. Just as when one forges a deed to a house, the rightful
owner is justified in going to court for as long as it takes to achieve justice
and remove the forger and the thief from his house. No judge will be justified
in intimidating or sanctioning the owner of the house for going to court
to seek resolution on the merits. Similarly, 'we the people' are the
rightful owners of the White House and we have the right to go to the authorities
and the courts to seek the resolution on the merits for as long as it takes
and to remove one who got there by virtue of fraud. It is ludicrous to believe
that any judge has any justification to attack us, to sanction us for what
is clearly our constitutional right. Saying that no citizen in the country
has standing and no court has standing is error of law. This court has erred
in not taking into account the October 5th oral argument by the undersigned
attorney in that California Choice of law rules require District of
Columbia Law be applied to DC defendants. Constitution is a contract between
'we the people' and the government. Natural Born citizen clause is an integral
part of this contract. California Supreme court adopted the rule laid out
in §187 of the restatement of the Conflict of Laws.. Under §188,
the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction
at issue is applied. California has adopted the rule of §188. Edwards
v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 848 F. Supp. 1460 (ND Cal. 1994);
Stonewall Surplus lines Ins. Co v Johnson Controls. Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th
637, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 713(1993). This is a case with diversity of parties
and the court can make a determination of a choice of law. As such Your Honor
can and has to choose DC law, which includes Quo Warranto provision. The
interest of judicial economy and National Defense as well as the interest
of National security particularly in light of latest slaughter of 13 soldiers
at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan dictate for Your Honor to make a determination
of election of DC law and proceeding in Quo Waranto under DC statute
16-3503.
14. The court erred in not taking Judicial notice of 18 USC §1346; Intangible
Rights Fraud-as individual damages are not required in Public Sector Mail
and Wire Political corruption. Mr. Obama's use of multiple social security
numbers, including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals,
his obfuscation of all the vital records and use of computer images of records
that cannot be considered genuine according to the experts constitute individual
predicate acts under Civil R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C.§§1961,1962(a)-(d),
and 1964(c)., which gives standing to every member of the public at large.
Denial of standing was an error of law.
15 .The court has made an erroneous and prejudicial statement regarding the
service of process by the plaintiffs. It was a clear error of fact and of
law. Mr. Obama has been served four times and evaded service of process.
As the original action was filed by the undersigned counsel on the Inauguration
Day (prior to swearing, as Mr. Obama took a proper oath only the next day,
on January 21st) by the undersigned counsel against Mr. Obama as an individual
for his actions as an individual prior to the election, the undersigned counsel
has properly served Mr. Obama as an individual under rule 4e and properly
demanded from the court a default judgment and post default discovery. As
the court refused to grant the default judgment, the undersigned properly
demanded certification for the interlocutory appeal. As Mr. Obama did not
respond to the service of process and couldn't send a US attorney to represent
him, a game was played and US attorney has showed up at July 13 hearing de-facto
representing Mr. Obama and arguing on his behalf, while claiming that Mr.
Obama was not served and that the US attorney represents United States of
America-party of interest. If the issue wouldn't be so serious for the National
Security of the country, the whole charade would have been laughable. After
all US attorneys were supposed to represent 'we the people' and were supposed
to join the plaintiffs, protecting them from massive fraud, not cover up
for the defendant. Assistant US attorney, Mr. DeJute demanded that the undersigned
counsel serve Mr. Obama through the US attorney's office, thereby giving
Mr. Obama an opportunity to get legal defense at the taxpayers' expense.
The undersigned attorney properly protested, stating that Mr. Obama was properly
served as an individual in regards to fraud that he committed as an individual
prior to the election and therefore he is not entitled to be represented
by the US attorneys at taxpayers' expense. Your honor did not state that
the undersigned was wrong in her assessment, but rather stated in presence
of 50 observers, that if the undersigned does not serve Mr. Obama the way
the government wants, the US attorney will appeal and the case will be sitting
in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, that if the undersigned counsel
agrees to serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, Your Honor promises
that the case will be heard on the merits and will not be dismissed on technicality.
The undersigned counsel has protested and raised concerns that, based on
prior cases, she is afraid that the US Attorney's office will try to dismiss
on technicality such as standing or jurisdiction, and the case will not be
heard on the merits. Again in front of 50 spectators Your Honor assured that
this court has jurisdiction and it is important for this case to be decided
not on default judgment, but on the merits, that it is important for the
military to know if the Commander in Chief is legitimate, it is important
for the whole country. If he is legitimate he can stay in the White House,
if he is not legitimate, he needs to be removed from there. Under duress
and tremendous pressure from Your Honor the undersigned counsel has agreed
to serve US attorney with the complaint. Her worst fears materialized, as
not only Your Honor has dismissed the case claiming lack of jurisdiction,
but the whole issue was completely misrepresented and the undersigned counsel
was denigrated. In the above matter the court erred both in the fact and
the law. Mr. Obama should have lost this case on the default judgment, post
judgment discovery was supposed to be ordered and all the vital records of
Mr. Obama could have been unsealed back in July and August, and this whole
nightmare for the whole Nation should have been over 3 months ago. As it
stands now, the undersigned counsel, her clients, all of the spectators present
in the courtroom and the whole Nation justifiably feel defrauded not only
by Mr. Obama, but also by this court.
16. The court erred in not including in the order and not considering an
affidavit of Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted by the plaintiffs as part of
the attachment in Dossier #1 and Dossier #6, as Ms Lines, one of the most
renown forensic document expert stated in her affidavit that Mr. Obama's
short form Certification of Live Birth cannot be considered genuine without
analyzing the original currently sealed in the Health Department in Hawaii.
Court also erred in omitting from the final order affidavits of licensed
investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels. Court erred in refusing to lift
the stay of discovery and granting a motion to dismiss, whereby the
court de facto aided and abetted obstruction of Justice by Mr. Obama.
17. The court has misrepresented the allegations in the pleadings. On page
2 line 10 The court states that the complaint pleadings talk about Mr. Obama's
citizenship status and his birth in Kenya. This is a misstatement of law
and complete misstatement of the pleadings and Oral argument. The undersigned
has submitted for Judicial notice The Law of Nations by Emer De Vattel, specifically
arguing that regardless of where Mr. Obama was born, he was never qualified
for presidency, and he admitted it, as he admitted that he had British Citizenship
at birth based on the citizenship of his father. Later he acquired Kenyan
and Indonesian citizenship, therefore he did not qualify as a Natural
Born Citizen, as from birth and until now he had allegiance to other Nations.
Natural born citizen is one born in the country to parents (both of them)
who are Citizens of the country. This definition was widely used by the framers
of the Constitution and was quoted by Chief Justice John Jay and the framer
of the 14th amendment John A Bingham.
18. The court erred in its statement that the court 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
court of Columbia.. This an error of law, since the DC code states that the
Quo Warranto may be brought in D.C., it does not state that it is an exclusive
jurisdiction, it does not state that another district court cannot try DC
residents including the President under DC statutes and there is no notion
in the DC court that proceeding in another court under Quo Warranto will
somehow rob the D.C. court. The DC code provides quo warranto may be issued
from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the
name of the United States against a person who within the district 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.
DC code §16-3501-16-3503(emphases added). The word may does not mean
exclusive jurisdiction, and as such the undersigned counsel was absolutely
correct in her assertion that this court has proper jurisdiction to proceed
under quo warranto and she prays that Your Honor proceeds immediately and
expeditiously with denying the defendants motion to dismiss Quo Warranto
cause of action and grants the plaintiffs lift of stay of discovery so they
can complete the discovery by the January 26 trial date.
19. The court has made an error of fact and completely misstated the FOIA
complaint. Pp26-27. For lack of better words it simply put the FOIA complaint
on its head. The undersigned counsel did not state that the FOIA requests
need to be send to the defendants, who are individuals, but simply said that
in the period of nearly a year she has sent requests for information and
request to take proper action to numerous agencies around the country, requesting
information about the defendants, and since Mr. Obama has sealed all of his
vital records by the executive order on the first day of office, further
FOIA requests would be futile. The undersigned counsel has submitted voluminous
dossiers 1-6 as attachments and showed the court that she undertook a Herculean
effort to obtain proper information from the Department of Justice, State
department, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Social Security Administration, Selective
Service to name a few. She visited governmental offices all over the country,
including CA, Washington DC, KY, TN, WA, TX and others. Simply put there
is a wall of silence and lack of response from all of the agencies and therefore
a judicial determination and an order of discovery from the trial judge is
needed. As there is an error of fact in the order, the undersigned
counsel requests to deny the defendants motion to dismiss, and to lift the
stay of discovery, so the plaintiffs can complete the proper discovery and
proceed on FOIA cause of action at the scheduled trial date of January 26.
20 .The court erred in its assertion that Mr. Obama has submitted his birth
certificate. The whole point is that he submitted a photo shopped computer
image of a short version Certification of Life Birth, obtained in 2007, that
does not provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures.
Mr. Obama has sealed his original birth certificate. State of Hawaii allows
one to get a birth certificate based on an uncorroborated statement of one
relative only, as such there is a need to unseal the original birth certificate,
birthing file and other vital records in order to ascertain his Natural Born
Status.
21 .The court has made an error of law in regards to the declaratory relief
cause of action. From p.16 to p.25 the court proceeds with a voluminous argument
on jurisdiction to remove the president and at the end of the argument makes
a huge leap and lumps declaratory relief together with the injunctive relief
in one denial. Even if one were to assume arguendo that the court has no
power to remove Mr. Obama from office, it has absolutely nothing to do with
the Declaratory Relief. In the declaratory relief the plaintiffs are
simply looking for the judicial determination of the meaning of the Natural
Born Citizen and factual determination, whether Mr. Obama possess proper
vital records and citizenship status to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.
This is an issue of first impression, it is ripe and it is of the paramount
importance for the country as a whole and particularly for the military that
needs to take orders from Mr. Obama as the Commander in Chief. Judicial determination
in the form of the declaratory relief is the exclusive domain of the judiciary,
it is an Article 3 issue. The Congress has absolutely no power to issue declaratory
relief, it has no power to interpret the Constitution, and regardless of
the mechanism by which Mr Obama will be later removed from office: Quo Warranto
or impeachment, the judicial determination, the declaratory relief has to
be done now and it has to be done here. As such the undersigned counsel prays
that your Honor deny the defendants motion to dismiss Declaratory Relief
cause of action and grant the lift of discovery so that the undersigned counsel
can complete her discovery on the Declaratory Relief cause of action by the
January 26 date, set for the jury trial.
22. Lastly the court erred in fact of law and fact on the issue of the political
doctrine, justiciability and separation of powers. The defense would like
to turn this issue into the political doctrine, however it is not an issue
of politics, it is an issue of fraud committed prior to taking office. The
plaintiffs were not seeking to enjoin any particular decisions of the executive
branch, but rather fraud committed by one in order to become the Chief Executive.
As the undersigned read to the court a letter written by Senator Sessions
of Alabama, the Congress is relying on the courts to resolve the issue of
eligibility. The Congress and Senate do not have any power to ascertain whether
Mr. Obama is eligible according to the Constitution. They are relying on
you, Your Honor, to make a Judicial Determination, provide declaratory relief
and they can take action upon your determination. In undying words of Chief
Judge John Marshall, not exercising jurisdiction, when it is available, is
treason to the Constitution. Therefore there is not only a potential for
justiciability, but obligation to take action based on justiciability. In
which way can jurisdiction and justiciability be asserted? Clearly these
are uncharted waters, however if this Nation would have been afraid to enter
uncharted water, it would have never sent a man to the Moon. If we could
send a man to the Moon, we can figure out the issues of the separation of
powers, justiciability and jurisdiction. In the humble opinion of the undersigned
proper cause of action provided several avenues: (a) declaratory relief on
Mr. Obama's Natural born status; (b) forwarding the findings to Congress
for their decision on impeachment; (c) forwarding the finding to a special
prosecutor; (d) forwarding the findings of fraud, social security fraud,
identity theft-if found, to the Department of Justice and Social Security
administration for further handling and ultimate enforcement (e). all of
the above. After many years of test taking in medicine and law, the
undersigned believes that all of the above is the most comprehensive, all
encompassing answer.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons Plaintiffs respectfully request
their motion for reconsideration granted and the defendants motion to dismiss
denied, or in the alternative the plaintiffs seek the leave of court to file
a second amended complaint against Mr. Obama specifically on Declaratory
Relief, R.I.C.O, Quo Warranto, 1983, Common Law Fraud and Breach of Contract
(Constitution of the United States Of America, Article 2, Section 1 being
subject matter of the material breach).
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433) Attorney for the Plaintiffs
NOVEMBER 9, 2009
My name is Orly Taitz. I am over 18 years old, am of sound mind and free
of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition.
I am a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state
of California.
I am an attorney and an officer of the court licensed in all courts of the
state of California, Supreme Court of the United States, Federal District
Court in the central District of the State of California and have practiced
pro hac vice in the states of Texas, Pennsylvania and Georgia.
This declaration is made in response to the October 29th order in above captioned
case.
During the October 5 hearing in the above mentioned case Judge David O. Carter
stated that I encouraged my supporters to call him in order to influence
his decision.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this is not true.
During the hearing I tried to protest this defamatory allegation against
me and asked to speak. However, Judge Carter refused to let me speak
and respond to this allegation.
In the same order on page 29, Judge Carter has stated that he received letters
with affidavits, claiming that I asked potential witnesses to perjure themselves.
I declare that this is absolutely and categorically not true, and it constitutes
an outrageous defamatory and slanderous accusation. Those letters were
ex parte communications, highly prejudicial against me and my clients and
I had no opportunity to respond and deny those accusations.
10.I believe that the court referred to the letters from Larry Sinclair and
Lucas Smith. Both parties were contacted and asked to be witnesses during
the motion hearing on September 8, 2009.
11. I have asked Larry Sinclair to authenticate an affidavit he submitted
to the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In fact,
the statements to which Mr. Sinclair would testify are already a matter of
public record.
In the affidavit submitted to the Chicago Police and in his book, recently
published, Mr. Sinclair stated that Mr. Donald Young contacted him repeatedly
and told Mr. Sinclair that he had a lengthy homosexual relationship with
Mr. Obama.
The affidavit further said that Mr. Young was found dead, shot in the back
of his head at the onset of the Democratic primaries for 2008 presidential
election.
Any allegation that I asked Mr. Sinclair to perjure himself is not only completely
defamatory, but lacks any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair's affidavit regarding
Mr. Young's homicide can be found filed with the Chicago police department
and in his book, that can be purchased on the Internet.
12. I asked Mr. Lucas Smith to authenticate Kenyan birth certificate for
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, which he previously tried to sell to the highest
bidder on E-bay. Again, any allegations that I asked Mr. Smith to perjure
himself is absolutely not true, defamatory and ludicrous, as he made this
information available to the public long before he ever met me.
13. As of now I am the only attorney with the courage, integrity and
strength of character to not only bring forward information of Mr. Barack
Obama not being eligible for the office of the presidency, but also to submit
to court information from two licensed investigators, showing that Mr. Obama
has used 39 different social security numbers according to national databases,
including social security numbers of deceased individuals.
14. I am bringing forward evidence showing that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,
sitting president, is guilty of multiple felonies, for which he might need
to spend the rest of his life in prison.
15. I believe that I am being targeted in an effort to silence me, which
involves targeting my law license in an attempt to try to prevent me from
proceeding with legal actions on the above issues.
I solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that all the facts stated and circumstances
described above are true and correct statements.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)