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

From reader Pamela Berry

Posted on | November 15, 2009 | Comments Off on From reader Pamela Berry

 

Dear Dr. Taitz:
The following should provide grounds for Recusal of Judge Carter.  Anyone with half a brain would question why Obama has spent millions to prevent his birth certificate or more important, his Citizenship papers from being revealed. The Judge did not even consider this in his dismissal.
This is not going to go away and if we have to impeach this man we shall so do.
Thank you for all you do.
Pamella Berry
 
  1. Since federal statute affords grounds for Recusal of Judge Carter by reason of the appearances of, if not real, conflict of interest, there is certainly basis for Orly’s Motion for Recusal by reason of Judge Carter’s hiring as his clerk a lawyer from the very same firm whose senior partner represents Obama in his eligibility cases during the pendency of this case.
  2. Coupling that with Judge Carter’s blatant errors, above, yet exhaustive (very well written) legal analyses as well as concluding harsh rebuke of Orly in “hamper[ing] the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep” (one could only wonder at the possible intrigue there), one is left to wonder about Judge Carter’s actual judicial motive, that is, ala Judge Land proceeding. We may never know.
  3. Before bashing Judge Carter for his October 29 Order, consider that he gave Dr. Taitz three openings wide enough through which to drive a Mack truck.
  4. First, Judge Carter misstates Orly’s argument as follows: “Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President.”
  5. This sentence could have two applications and meanings, each of which is flatly wrong and grounds for error. If it means that Orly ARGUED that Obama produced the Hawaii birth certificate, that is clearly wrong. She did not argue that. On the other hand, if it means that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate, Orly ARGUED there is evidence to show Obama was actually born in Kenya, that is judicial error premised on a fact — “Obama produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii” — still in dispute and to be tried.
  6. Judge Carter then compounds the above with a misstatement of Orly’s case in the very next sentence as follows: “Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the president was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States citizenship.”
  7. First, Orly’s argument of “natural born citizen” is not premised on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii rather than Kenya, but on Obama’s father being a Kenyan/British citizen on baby Obama’s birth. Second, Judge Carter applies the two terms, “citizenship” and “natural born citizen” in a context as if they are the same. To the contrary, only “citizenship” could be lost through Obama’s intervening Indonesian status, that intervening status would have no bearing on “natural born citizen” — entailing the two citizen parent requirement attached only at birth. (Judge Carter may have announced what was Attorney Gary Kreep’s argument, but it was not Orly’s, leaving us to contemplate Judge Carter retaining Kreep’s and Orly’s cases together over Orly’s strenuous objections.)
  8. And finally, Judge Carter cites Plaintiffs’ failure “to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama was sworn into office” as meaning that Orly lost the right to ask the Court to interpret the candidate’s qualifications to run for office (we’ll leave consideration of Gary Kreep’s role in delay of Orly filing for another day) insisting that Orly’s sole relief claimed is removal from office.
  9. At least with respect to Candidate Keyes who bases his claim on tortious fraud against “Candidate” Obama, not ‘President’ Obama, that removal is not the sole relief sought. First of all, whether or not Orly’s case was filed at a time of day on January 20, 2009 before or after Obama was sworn in, the Court would be faced with same actual problem at the present time of addressing a “current President” rather than “political candidate” in terms of relief, hence the distinction is a red herring. On the other hand, IF the “before-or-after Oath” IS crucial vis a vis Orly’s filing as Judge Carter maintains, the time and date of Obama’s Oath is, at the very least, a fact to be tried and a fact in dispute considering that the Chief Justice was called upon to administer the Oath at the Whitehouse, the following day, January 21, 2009 — the day after Orly filed the case.

Category: Letters from Readers and Patriots, Letters/Feedback from Readers

Comments

Comments are closed.