Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ.

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy Suite 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Phone (949) 683-5411 fax (949) 766-7603

Email: Orly.taitz@gmail.com

CA Bar license 223433

Plaintiff pro se

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern DISTRICT OF Texas

Dallas Division

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Comes now plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, Hereinafter “Taitz” with opposition to motion to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss by the defense should be denied as totally frivolous and without merit.

1. 1.     Venue is proper in this district
2.  This court has jurisdiction
3. Plaintiff has standing
4. Subject matter of the complaint is one of the most important matters in front of this country today

/s/ Orly Taitz ESQ

10.10.2012

Brief in support of opposition to the motion to dismiss  

1. Venue

As  it  was  explained  in  the  response  to  the  court,  Taitz  originally  filed  her complaint in California, where she resides.

According  to  the ruling of  CA judge Dolly Gee,  defendant  Chatfield  did  not qualify as a Federal employee for the purpose of ascertaining venue. That is why the case was dismissed in California without prejudice, so that Taitz could refile in another district.

Mr. Chatfield resides at  1517 BONHAM CT, IRVING, TX 75038, which is in the Northern district of TX, therefore Taitz filed in the correct district, the venue is proper and the court has jurisdiction.

Moreover Chatfield’s actions were not in furtherance of legitimacy of the Selective Service,  his  actions  undermined  the  legitimacy  of  the  Selective  Service.  Taitz presented  to  Chatfield  evidence  of  forgery  in  Obama’s  IDs  and  due  to  some consideration Chatfield decided to burry this evidence. His actions are outside normal functions of former Director of Selective Service.

While defense is suggesting that Plaintiff should have sued current Durector of Selective Service, Mr. Romo, Taitz can certainly do that and join Mr. Romo as an additional defendant, however at issue are actions of William Chatfield, whose actions were flagrantly criminal. Chatfield engaged in Treason and became criminally complicit to elections fraud and forgery, when  he decided to bury all evidence.

2. Taitz does not belong to a recognized exemption group and will be subject to

Obamatax.

See  exhibit  1,  Affidavit  by Orly Taitz,  stating  that  she does  not  belong  to  a religious group or sect and will be subject to Obamatax. As such penalty is imminent.

3.   DEFENSE   IS   STATING   THE   OPPOSITE   OF   WHAT   JUDGE LAMBERTH STATED IN TAITZ V OBAMA 10- CV-151 RCR. TAITZ HAS STANDING UNDER FLAST V COHEN

Taxpayer standing was confirmed by the chief Judge of the US District court for the District of Columbia, Judge Lamberth.

In Taitz v Obama Taitz originally sued under the Writ of Mandamus and the Commerce Clause and the original complaint dealt with Obama’s eligibility per DC Quo Warranto statutes. ACA   was not signed into law until after the original complaint was briefed.  The court ruled that she did not have standing under those two clauses and stated that there is taxpayer standing under the Establishment Clause.

“Ms.  Taitz  requests  reconsideration  of  the Court’s   dismissal  of  her Commerce  Clause claim, which asked the Court to declare the recently enacted  Patient  Protection   and  Affordable Care Act, Pub. L.  No. 111-

148,  invalid.    Ms. Taitz claims  that  because  President  Obama  has not proved  that  he  is  a  natural  born  citizen,  he  thus  cannot  legitimately sign  the  bill  into  law. Additionally, Ms. Taitz asserts that her imminent injury is sufficient for standing…”

” while the U.S. Supreme  Court has recognized that taxpayer standing can be sufficient in an Establishment Clause challenge to government action in Flast v.  Cohen,  392  U.S.  8  (1968),  it  has  refused  to  create  a  similar  rule  for Commerce Clause challenges.  DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332,347-49    (2006);    see  also  Bowen  v.  Kendrick, 487  U.S.  589,  618  (1988) 06.18.10 order by judge Lamberth in Taitz v Obama 10-cv-151 RCR, order on Motion for Reconsideration.

Upon receiving this ruling, Taitz filed another motion for reconsideration, asking to rule in her favor based on the Establishment clause, however the court ruled that since she did not bring the Establishment clause in the original complaint, it would not consider it under rule 60B.

“plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available  to  her  at  the  time  of  filing.  Therefore, the  Court  will  not  address plaintiff’s new claims.” id

Therefore Plaintiff did not have a complaint under ACA or Establishment clause. As a matter of fact, when the original complaint was filed on 01.27.2010 ACA was not signed into law yet, so she could not bring her complaint under ACA and the Establishment clause would not have been the correct basis for her complaint in January 2010 two months before ACA was signed into law. Based on the above one can see that Judge Lamberth actually found that the establishment clause would be a correct vehicle, correct cause of action for Taitz complaint, but it was not ripe until ACA was signed into law.

4.  IN  JUNE  SUPREME  COURT  RULED  THAT  ANTI-INJUNCTION CLAUSE  DID  NOT  SERVE  AS  A  BARRIER  TO  LEGAL  ACTIONS CHALLENGING HEALTH CARE ACT, WHICH ALLOWS TAITZ TO PROCEED NOW.

Previously one had to pay a tax in order to bring a challenge to the tax. Recent decision  by  the  Supreme  court  opened  the  door  to  multiple  legal  actions, challenging ACA and individual mandate by both individuals and employers. Recently SCOTUS gave Justice Department 30 days to provide a response to the legal challenge against ACA by the Liberty University. While Liberty University brings a number of challenges against ACA, it does not bring all he challenges

brought  by  Taitz. Additionally Taitz filed with this court a Request of Judicial Notice of a Preliminary Injunction granted to Hercules industries on similar grounds.  In  the  interest  of  Judicial  economy  and  expediency,  it  is reasonable to rule on Taitz challenges in order to bring them to SCOTUS in the near future. Estimates show that some 6 million people will be affected by the ObamaTax, therefore it is in the benefit of Public Policy to hear this matter expeditiously in order to provide a relief and resolution of grievances not only to Taitz, but to 6 million other individuals.

5.  DEFENSE IS MISLEADING THE COURT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION. DEFENSE IS MISLEADING THE COURT  BY  NOT  REVEALING THAT NEW RELIGIOU GROUPS CAN APPLY FOR THE EXEMPTION.

Defense conveniently omits the most important point that new groups can apply for the exemption. Defense is stating that in the 1930s a group that claimed religious exemption, was Amish and Menonite, however they do not mention that today the largest group that finds Insurance to be a form of usury, which is against their belief,  is a group of Muslim –Americans. This group counts some 7 million people and is growing exponentially.

WHAT IF A RELIGIOUS GROUP OR SECT DECLARES THAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO INCOME TAX, WOULD THE OTHER TAXPAYERS HAVE TO CARRY ON THEIR SHOULDERS ALL THE TAXATION

FOR SUCH A GROUP?

The absurd of ACA can be demonstrated by a following example: Let’s imagine that tomorrow a group declares that they are opposed to income tax, does that mean that the rest of the taxpayers will have to carry on their shoulders all of the expenses, all of the tax burden of such a group? Potentially millions of people would join such a group. How would that be in public interest and how would it preserve equal protection?   The only answer, is that it doesn’t. ACA will open a

flood gate of claims of opposition to each and every tax for religious reason. This nation will be paralyzed. What defense is missing is the point that the Supreme Court  ruled  that  Obama  Care  is  not  an  insurance,  but  a  tax,  an  Obamatax. Religious exemption provision in the Obamacare is ill conceived. There have to be guidelines, limits, of how big a group of objectors can be in order for  it to serve the public policy and not be a source of a divide and religious segregation in the society. Moreover, there have to be safeguards whereby 14^th and 5^th amendment Equal Protection rights are not violated, so that taxpayers like Taitz would not have to carry on their shoulders the health care costs of others and be taxed and penalized if they refuse to do so.

5. Defense is missing the point in that there is a significant difference between the  Social  security  and  Obamacare  and  there  is  a  significant  difference  in demographics between 1936 and 2012.

Let’s start with Demographics. In the 1930s, when the Social Security Act was signed and first implemented the costs paid for the SSA were minimal, objectors were scarce. How many Amish resided in the United States in the 30s? A few thousand. Granting an exemption to them was insignificant. However, according to  estimates  there  are  between  7  -10  million  Muslims  in  the  United  States. Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. both by virtue of massive immigration and high birth rate as in traditional Muslim families a man is allowed to have multiple wives and has multiple children. According to recent writings  of  writer Avi  Lipkin,  Barack  Obama  is  seeking  to  increase  the  Muslim population of this country to 100 million. As was extensively explained in the complaint  and  exhibits  to  the  complaint,  Shariya  law  prohibits  purchase  of insurance, seeing  it  as  a  form of  a usury,  a  form of  gambling. An insuredis gambling that he will be seek, insurance company is gambling that he will be healthy. Such large number of individuals opposing health insurance payment will bankrupt the country and its citizens, including Taitz.

7. Important point is the fact that the Health insurance and Universal Healthcare are different from the Social Security, in that it is more expensive and the care will not be denied.

Massive assaults on the tax payers and massive violation of equal protection rights  and  civil  rights  of  the  U.S.  citizens  during  Obama  administration  are flagrantly clear.

As an example, another case was brought in this very district Crane v Napolitano

12-cv-3247. Crane challenges another policy by the Obama administration in issuing an executive order allowing de facto amnesty to millions of DREAMers, illegal aliens under 31. Just as Taitz is arguing that the magnitude of a burden of ObamaTax, in its application only to some religions and not others, is a flagrant violation of her civil rights, Crane is arguing that the magnitude of the DREAM ACT and multitude of DREAMers  is upfront to Constitution and his civil rights.

In both Crane v Napolitano and Taitz v Sebelius the Plaintiffs are arguing that small scale exemptions that are on the books and were applied from time to time,

absolutely dwarf in comparison to massive social engineering that is clear based on reviewing the demographics.

8. DEFENSE IS MISSING THE POINT THAT THE BURDEN ON CITIZENS LIKE TAITZ DUE TO MASSIVE EXEMPTIONS IN OBAMACARE IS INEVITABLE, 100% GUARANTEED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

What economic surveys show, is that under Obamacare the health care costs and insurance costs are rising rapidly. This means that if she buys insurance, she will pay more as her premiums will be higher as she will have to cover exempt individuals with religious exemption.(Exhibit 3) National Standard article. If she   does not purchase insurance, she will be fined. Financial  injury is 100% certain one way of another, which confirms standing, confirms that the damage is not hypothetical, not conjunctional, but real.

Defense is erroneously stating that just because ACA does not specifically mention Muslims, Christians and Jews, this controversy does not exist.

When a document or statute does not provide all the information, one has to go to other documents, other evidence to clarify and understand the details. If ACA does not state, which religion would get the exemption from payment of the ObamaTax, one has to go to the writings of specific religions in order to ascertain which religions would benefit. Because the teachings of the Shariah law find insurance to be a usury, which is prohibited by the Shariah law, it means that members of the Muslim religion would get the exemption.

Similarly, US Contitution states that one has to be a natural born citizen in order to be a U.S. President, however, there is no explanation in the constitution, who qualifies as a natural born citizen,

Defense is saying that just because Muslims, Christians and Jews are not mentioned in ACA they have nothing to do with the exemption. Using Defense logic of steel,  just because no person or group is mentioned in the Constitution, than no one qualifies as the natural born.

What is the eligibility requirement for the U.S. President?

It is defined in the US Constitution Article 2, section 1, clause 5, which states “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President”.

So, based on the Constitution we have two options:

1. a U.S. citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted or

2. natural born U.S. citizen.

Of course, the first  provision was written into the Constitution in order to grandfather in the first Presidents, who obviously were born before the creation of the United States of America and were required to be only “citizens” at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The  second  part  relates  to  all  other  Presidents,  who  were  born  after  the  adoption  of  the Constitution.  This  means  that  the  defendant  needs  to  be  a    “natural  born  citizen”.  The Constitution does not provide a definition of what a natural born citizen is. Such definition needs to be drawn from multiple extraneous sources, available at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Just as in a recent case of U.S. v Heller 554 U.S.570(2008), where the courts had to deduct the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the framers intent; the case at hand requires such reconstruction of the framers’ intent. To this extent, this is a case of first impression, as no court ever ruled directly on the point of the meaning of “natural born citizen’, as it applies to the U.S. President. The closest the courts came to the determination of natural born, is in a precedent of Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163 (1875)

MINOR V HAPPERSETT

Minor states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country

of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the  purposes  of  this  case,  it  is  not  necessary  to  solve  these  doubts…..”  id.  It  is  common knowledge and described at length in Defendant Obama’s Memoirs, such as Dreams from my

Father, that Obama’s father was a foreigner. Obama Senior was a foreign exchange student who resided in the U.S. for a couple of years while he got his education and he returned to his native Kenya. At the time of Obama’s birth, his father, who came from Mombasa, Zanzibar region of Kenya, was a British “protected person”. Obama automatically inherited his father’s British citizenship upon the British  Nationality act of 1948. Upon the declaration of the Independence of Kenya on December 11, 1963, Barack Obama automatically received his Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963. As Obama was around five years old his mother remarried one Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian national. According to Obama’s memoirs (Dreams from my Father) and official biography, it is common knowledge that the family immigrated to Indonesia around

1967. Obama’s school records from Indonesia show him using last name Soetoro and nationality Indonesian. So, from birth until today, Obama had citizenship of three other countries, he is a son of a foreign national and a step son of another foreign national, therefore not eligible to be considered a natural born U.S. citizen according to the precedent of Minor v Happersett.

Wong Kim Ark

The only case law, that seems to contradict Minor, is a precedent of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169

U.S. 649 (1898). Wong Kim Ark is a case, relating to the citizenship of a young man, born to

two Chinese permanent residents. Kim Ark moved back to China and sought to return back to the U.S. as a U.S. citizen.   Wong Kim Ark defined U.S. citizenship based on jus solis, based on the place of birth and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

WONG KIM ARK IS NOT A CONTROLLING PRECEDENT

Kim Ark is not a controlling precedent for a number of reasons.

a. Kim Ark dealt only with citizenship in general. It never dealt with the definition of natural born citizenship.

b. Kim Ark never dealt with the issue of the U.S. Presidency and heightened requirements of the natural born status as it relates to the President and Commander-in-Chief.

c. In Kim Ark both parents of the  Defendant were permanent U.S. residents, who intended to reside in the U.S. Obama’s father was never a permanent resident, at the time of Obama’s birth he was in the U.S. on a student visa only, intending to return to Kenya.

d. Kim Ark was not an unanimous decision. Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justice John Harlan dissented, pointing out that since the Declaration of the Independence, U.S. parted from the British Common Law doctrine of jus solis and followed the international doctrine of jus sanguinis, with offspring inheriting the nationality and allegiance of their fathers.

e. British common law doctrine of jus solis relates to allegiance to the crown, to the sovereign, which of course was abandoned in the U.S. since the adoption of the Constitution.

f. The majority opinion in Kim Ark was drafted by the associate justice Horace Gray, appointee of President Chester Arthur.  It was rumored, that Gray’s commission and subsequent decision in Kim Ark was done to sanitize Arthur’s own lack of eligibility. William Arthur, Chester Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen and there is no clear evidence, that he became a U.S. citizen prior to

Chester  Arthur’s  birth.  Reportedly  Chester  Arthur  burned  his  identification  papers  and  his eligibility  is  covered  in  mystery.    Chester  Arthur  is  the  only  other  U.S.  President,  whose eligibility is questioned. Just because Arthur burned his documents, does not give Obama green light to disrespect the court and the nation and show a contempt to the judiciary and refuse to produce any verifiable documents, any evidence of his natural born status.

Due to all of the above Taitz believes that Kim Ark does not represent a binding authority. It is noteworthy that in the last four years one partisan state court, consisting of majority of liberal Democrats made a present to Barack Obama in a decision Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). This, predominantly Democrat State Court of Appeals in Indiana ruled that Wong Kim Ark is the precedent that does not require both parents to be the US citizens at the time of birth, however this court dealt with an entirely one sided case, the plaintiffs did not have attorneys representing them, the plaintiffs in Ankeny were two blue color workers, with no legal background, and the court used this opportunity to declare that the fact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and the fact that Obama was a foreign national by birth is not a problem for the U.S. Presidency. Indiana court of Appeals in Ankeny did not address any of the points brought above and simply came up with a one sided, partisan decision. Even if one were to rely on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, there is still a major problem, Obama’s fraudulently obtained Social security number and  forged    birth certificate and a forged Selective Service certificate. No valid original documents were ever provided to any court.

INTENT OF THE FRAMERS

At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution a treatise, most commonly used by the framers, was the Law of Nations  by a well known Swiss diplomat and jurist Emer de Vattel. Written in 1758, it was well known to the framers and often used as a template for the U.S. Constitution. Book 1, Chapter 19, part 212 of the Law of Nations says: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. It states “parents” in plural,  not  at  least  one  parent  in  singular.  Moreover,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the Constitution, the controlling citizenship was one of a father and Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The framers knew the meaning of natural born and that might be the reason, why there is no definition in the Constitution. Based on Vattel and Minor Obama does not qualify as a natural born, due to his foreign citizenship and foreign allegiance at birth.

One of the framers of the Constitution, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in his well known July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington: ‘Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to admission of foreigners into the administration of the National government; and to declare expressly that the Commander-in- Chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”(the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Bantam Dell

3 Responses to “I am still working on this opposition in Obamacare case. It is due today by midnight Central time. No pressure at all :-)”

1. Richard Kramer
   October 11th, 2012 @ 9:42 am

   If you filed a new amended complaint listing Mr. Judd, who now resides in Texas, as a Plaintiff, you would then have perfect standing and could raise the issue in your opposition. Can you do all that before midnight?

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   October 11th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

   why do I need to file a new complaint? Defendant Chatfield resides in TX. also, iam not licensed in TX, I can’t represent Judd there

3. The Right Thing To Do
   October 11th, 2012 @ 10:45 am

   Why don’t the Federal Courts step-in and do the RIGHT THINGS, instead of just throwing up ROADBLOCKS.

   If they wanted to, all those FEDERAL JUDGES could be a BIG HELP, not part of the PROBLEM. All they have to do is HONOR the OATHS they took when they took office. It’s just that plain and simple.

   Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s “SOLID, BONA FIDE, AND UNREFUTED EVISENCE, backs-up and proves BEYOND a SHADOW of a DOUBLE, everything the Doctor is saying/doing, and has been saying and doing for more than four years now, and I believe MOST if not ALL Federal Judges are already fully aware of that fact, or they wouldn’t be in the positions that they are in. They AIN’T DUMMIES!

   So why are those Federal Judges playing “UNCONSTITUTIONAL DODGE BALL” with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s “CASES”? Is somebody from up above watching them?

   If this “UNCONSTITUTIONAL MESS” isn’t cleaned up ASAP we all lose BIG TIME, including the Judges too.

Leave a Reply