OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

submitted to the Supreme Court of NH

Posted on | January 4, 2012 | 8 Comments

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

PHONE 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603

ORLY.TAITZ@GMAIL.COM

CA BAR LIC 223433 IN PROPRIA PERSONA

SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ; NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVES  LARRY RAPPAPORT , HARRY ACCORNERO,  LUCIEN VITA ,  CAROL VITA, MOE VILLENUEVA, SUSAN DELEMUS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THOMAS MAC LERAN, CODY JUDY et al          PLAINTIFFS ,

VS.

BRAD COOK, MARTHA VAN OOT, JAMISON FRENCH, MARGARET ANN MORAN, JANE CLEMONS- MEMBERS OF THE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION; BILL GARDNER  SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEFENDANTS

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 CASE NO.:

Rule 10

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE RULING BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

RULE 7- DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Rule 11

CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Petitioners hereby request this Honorable Court to reconsider its decision not to hear the Appeal filed in the above-captioned case. Petitioners make this request based on Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire:

Rule 22 authorizes Petitioners to file the instant motion for reconsideration or rehearing. For the Court’s convenience, the rule is stated here in its entirety:

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rule 22.

(1) A motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be entered upon the filing with the clerk of the supreme court of the original and 7 copies of the motion and a certificate by counsel that a copy of the motion and notice of the filing have been mailed first class or delivered to opposing counsel and to the clerk of the court or agency from which the appeal or transfer was taken, and (in the case of an appeal from an administrative agency) to the attorney general.

(2) Any motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be filed within 10 days from the date of the opinion or dismissal or summary decision in matters in which an opinion is not issued. The motion shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that in the professional judgment of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present, but the motion shall not exceed 10 pages. Oral argument in support of the motion shall not be permitted, except at the invitation of the court.

(3) No answer to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be required unless requested by the court, but any answer or objection must be filed within 10 days from the date the motion was filed.

(3-A)  If an answer/objection to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is filed, no reply to the answer/objection may be filed without permission of the court received in advance. A motion for permission to file a reply must be filed within 10 days from the date the answer/objection has been filed in the clerk’s office; provided, however, that the court may act upon a motion for rehearing or reconsideration prior to the expiration of said ten-day period. Any reply to an answer/objection filed without prior permission of the court shall not be considered by the court.

(4) If a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is granted, the court may make a final disposition of the case without reargument or may restore it to the calendar for reargument or resubmission or make such other orders as are deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(5) Consecutive motions for rehearing or reconsideration shall not be considered or acted upon by the court.

MOTION

Petitioners herein are seeking a review by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire of the decision reached by the Ballot Law commission. Petitioners are seeking such review under Rule 7 (Discretionary Review) and under Rule 10 (Review by Petition of the Decision by the Agency), which was unlawful and unreasonable as well as under Rule 11. Every issue specifically raised herein has been presented to the administrative agency and has been properly preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate, by a properly filed pleading.

The Court denied to consider Petitioner’s Appeal without opinion on December 27, 2011. Decision by the court was received by the petitioners on  December 29, 2011.

Petitioners ask for reconsideration on the basis that Rule 11 and the prior conduct of the Ballot Law Commission establishes a clear basis for this Honorable Court’s assumption of Original Jurisdiction AND notes for the Court that the Office of State Administrative Hearings in Georgia yesterday allowed a similar challenge to proceed. (Decision Attached as Exhibit 1, hereto.) While this of course has no binding effect on this Honorable Court, it does show that this inquiry has been allowed to proceed by another State, and is not automatically dismissed out of hand by every agency and court that reviews this good faith eligibility challenge.

There should be uniformity in decision for presidential eligibility around the country.

Petitioners, a number of whom are duly elected state representatives of New Hampshire, presented this court with undeniable evidence, showing that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the U.S. Presidency due to his foreign citizenship and allegiance to foreign nations and due to his lack of any valid primary identification papers to show his natural born U.S. citizen status. Connecticut Social Security number, that he is using, was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS and his alleged copy of a long form birth certificate was proven to be a forgery according multiple experts. Trial on the merits of the case of his eligibility is scheduled for January 26, 2011 in the state of GA. Exhibit 1. If the Adminstrative Court of GA finds Obama not to be eligible, there will be an impermissible confusion and schism between the states. As such, it would be prudent, for this court to stay count of ballots for Obama in the state of New Hampshire, until his eligibility is heard on the merits. This would provide consistent decisions around the nations. Petitioners are requesting that this court reconsider its prior decision or in the alternative consider previously submitted Motion for Stay. The court is requested to stay issuance of the final mandate pending resolution on the merits in the sister state of GA.

1. Under Rule 11, this Court Should Assume Original Jurisdiction of this Matter Because the Actions of the Agency Are Outside of Normal Conduct of the Agency.

Petitioner argues that, according to Rule 11 of the Supreme Court, the Court can assume original jurisdiction when the actions of the agency are outside of what represents normal conduct of the agency.

Regarding Petitions for original jurisdiction, Rule 11 states: “…Petitions requesting this court to exercise its original jurisdiction shall be granted only when there are special and important reasons to do so….when a trial court or administrative agency has decided a question of substance not therefore determined by this court; or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this court;  or has so far departed from the accepted or usual course of judicial or administrative agency proceedings as to call for an exercise of this court’s power of supervision.”

In a number of prior cases cited in the original Appeal, Petitioners pointed out that the Ballot Law commission and the Secretary of State removed individuals from the ballot for not being qualified, not being eligible. There is more than one example of individuals being removed who are not natural born citizens. These cases are as follows:

In Obama’s case members of the commission defrauded the petitioners and the public by claiming that they have jurisdiction “only to check if Obama filled out the form correctly and paid the $1,000 fee. (Transcript of the Ballot Law Commision hearing, ballot challenge by Taitz). This assertion by the Ballot Law Commission is thus clearly a departure from their prior conduct, from the “accepted or usual course” of their handling of eligibility challenges that it is entirely fair for the challengers to ask why, and for this Court to resolve that important question.

BASED ON THE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION’S PRIOR ACTIONS REMOVING CANDIDATES FOR FAR LESS SUBSTANTIVE REASONS, AFTER MAKING A SUBSTANTIVE INQUIRY, THE COMMISSION’S FAILURE TO SUBJECT OBAMA TO SIMILAR SCRUTINY MOST CERTAINLY MUST BE AN ACTION “the accepted or usual course of judicial or administrative agency proceedings as to call for an exercise of this court’s power of supervision.”

Thus, Petitioners beseech this Court, in the interests of justice and based on Rule 11 and 22, to please reconsider whether the agency in question departed from the accepted or usual course of their proceedings to give special favor to the President, and find that original jurisdiction exists “as to call for an exercise of this court’s “power of supervision.”

2.  Between this Court’s Earlier Order and this Motion, an Administrative Law Judge in Georgia Has Determined that Barack Obama’s Eligibility Challenge Should Proceed.

Moreover, on January 3, 2012, Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Office of Administrative Hearings in the State of Georgia DENIED Barack Obama’s Motion to Dismiss an eligibility challenge on the basis that under Georgia law, both the Secretary of State and electors have the right to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.

The full text of the ruling on the motion to dismiss is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This well-known source of concern about Obama’s eligibility has become something of a legal and political “hot potato” in many of the jurisdictions where it has been asserted and the tendency has been for courts and agencies to dispose of it at its inception. Petitioners inform this Honorable Court of the decision in Georgia to illustrate that such is not always, nor should it be, the case. This important matter is proceeding in the State of Georgia as it should in the State of New Hampshire.

NEW EVIDENCE SURFACED, SHOWING SECRETARY OF STATE GARDNER FLAGRANTLY VIOLATING SANCTITY OF ELECTIONS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN REGARDS TO ELECTIONS RESULTS

Attached transcript and link to a video tape posted on you-tube (Exhibit 2)  shows Secretary of State of New Hampshire caught on tape red handed, not placing boxes with ballots in vault for secure keeping, but simply leaving them in a room, which was not secure,  providing no answers to reporters. Later the room in question was found to be unlocked, boxes open. Citizens are left wandering, what is in these boxes, are those boxes with pre-filled ballots in rigged, predetermined elections? This recent revelation shows a pattern of either fraud or criminal negligence, complete abandon of the most basic rules of safeguarding lawful elections by the Secretary of State.  This, coupled with malice, shown by Secretary of State Gardner and ballot law commission, in placing on the ballot Obama, in spite of total lack of qualifications, shows a pattern of wide ranged fraud by the top elections officials of the state of New Hampshire. It is imperative for the Supreme Court of New Hampshire not to be complicit in this fraud.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, this Honorable Court should reconsider its decision not to hear this Appeal under its original jurisdiction arising out of Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire. In the alternative, this court should stay issuance of final judgment, of final mandate pending resolution of Obama’s eligibility by currently underway in the Administrative Court of the state of Georgia.

Respectfully Submitted,                                                         Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

January 4, 2012

I, Orly Taitz, certify, that a copy of above petition was forwarded to the defendants via e-mail to Deputy Secretary of State at

David.Scanlan@sos.nh.gov

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

8 Responses to “submitted to the Supreme Court of NH”

  1. Starla
    January 4th, 2012 @ 9:28 pm

    Dr. Orly,

    I wanted to share this information with you:

    “NEW LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ON BEHALF OF DUNCAN SUNAHARA”

    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 5:02 PM
    Wednesday, January 4, 2012

    “Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan Sunahara”

    Lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara, Virginia Sunahara’s brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit will be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

    The case is listed as follows…

    Read More Here: https://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html

    * * * *

    Dr. Orly, it is imperative and important that you read the comments under the above article link. They may give you some info for your lawsuits.

  2. Starla
    January 4th, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

    “LETTER TO NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATORS”

    Posted on November 24, 2011

    Excerpt:

    “One of the most obvious reasons the Supreme Court has refused to take any eligibility case is that it -the Supreme Court- has already decided the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office–in 1875. Reaffirmed several times since then and even by Congress in 2008, ref SR-511, there is no need for a ‘clarified’ definition of ‘natural born citizen’, and Obama can be removed right now…not by impeachment, not by a Congressional wimps ‘r us hearings, not by the 25th Amendment–but by his immediate arrest.

    A review:

    The binding language in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that requires the president be a natural born citizen:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    The binding legal precedent as to the definition of natural born citizen:

    “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.” Minor v Happersett 1875.”

    Read More Here:
    https://gwgjlg.wordpress.com

  3. Benjamin Francis Cooley
    January 4th, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

    Hi Dr. Taitz,
    I got this piece of information on the wire that the brother of the little girl the birth certificate that Barack Obama is actually using belongs to the little sister of a man that filed suit today in a Hawaii Court. The number Obama uses allegedly belongs to this little girl AND it is reported that the brother has the original document. I do not have any contact information, only this link. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1oDUdJCAp0Q/TwT0sC8hnBI/AAAAAAAAD4w/jVkuN3Hri-A/s1600/Sunahara+v+Hawaii+Department+of+Health.png

    Maybe your investigators can find something from that.

  4. Starla
    January 4th, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

    “Virginia Sunahara Research Results”

    https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/10-virginia-sunahara-research-results/

    * * * *

    You may want to read some of this information. Notice the links on the right side of link above. You may want to read some of these areas also.

  5. Natural Born Citizen Of The USA
    January 5th, 2012 @ 12:38 am

    “Virginia Sunahara Research Results”

    https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/10-virginia-sunahara-research-results/

    * * * *

    You may want to read some of this information. Notice the links on the right side of link above. You may want to read some of these.

  6. Proclaiming Justice
    January 5th, 2012 @ 4:45 am

    Court: Obama must be ‘constitutionally’ eligible…

    by Bob Unruh WND EXCLUSIVE Judge denies president’s motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to ……

  7. Thomas/PatriotofPast
    January 6th, 2012 @ 7:56 am

    Mrs. Taitz, I called my Secretary of State Jason Gant (South Dakota). He was not in the office, so I asked the gentleman who answered the phone (Terry) how I could Challenge the Democratic Nomination for the South Dakota ballot. He told me that it was “out of thier hands”… He said the State DNC submits the paperwork, the fee, and they follow State Law and place the name on the ballot.
    I asked him if his office recieved ANY of the emails that I had sent, including the 2008 DNC Certification Nomination, BOTH COPYS. The ORIGINAL and the one South Dakota and 49 other States recieved. He said they Did Not…
    I told him that the 2008 Nomination was fraudulent, HE DID NOT SEEM TO CARE!
    What do I do Orly? The guy said it was a matter For the Courts?
    Is thier NO COMMON SENSE ANYMORE?

Leave a Reply