Article in World Net Daily about my Petition for Writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court
Posted on | October 30, 2010 | 5 Comments
BORN IN THE USA?
Lawyer: ‘Environment is more favorable for judges to decide on the merits without fear’
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Orly Tait |
California attorney Orly Taitz says the changing political environment has made it much more likely that, for the first time, a U.S. court will rule on the merits of an Obama eligibility case.
“Now the environment is more favorable for judges to decide on the merits without fear,” said Taitz, a leader in the legal battle to force President Obama to prove his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Taitz recently presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition for a writ of certiorari in her case, Orly Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. A writ of certiorari means the court agrees to review the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to reply to the new filing and announce whether it will hear the case on Nov. 24.
Taitz v. MacDonald is now the second case challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve in the Oval Office up for review by the Supreme Court.
(Story continues below)
“We have had a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Democratic administration, so the courts have been hesitant to do anything,” Taitz told WND.
“Today things are changing,” Taitz continued. “Republicans are projected to take the House of Representatives with big margins, and Obama’s approval ratings are way down, so the justices might feel less intimidated to rule on the merits of the case.”
Taitz v. MacDonald was originally brought on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama’s signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.
A “natural born citizen” was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.
But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama’s legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.
“Legitimacy is a theoretical question,” said Taitz. “This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted.”
Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.
“It cannot have been legally obtained,” said Taitz.
Her brief asserts that Obama’s Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.
“This is evidence of fraud,” Taitz said.
More legal documents related to Taitz v. MacDonald can be found on Taitz’ website.
According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she’s appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.
Taitz v. MacDonald follows on the heels of Kerchner v. Obama, a case also arguing that Obama has failed to prove he is a “natural born citizen.” The court is scheduled to announce its decision whether to hear Kerchner v. Obama on Nov. 3.
As WND has reported, Kerchner v. Obama attorney Mario Apuzzo warns the Supreme Court that if the judiciary fails to enforce the Constitution’s requirements for the president, effectively the court would be ceding to political interests the right to amend the Constitution at will.
Supremes more likely to rule on substance of eligibility case
Comments
5 Responses to “Article in World Net Daily about my Petition for Writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court”
Leave a Reply
October 30th, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
So, what are the odds? 50-50?
October 30th, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Truly a sad Time, if Truth & Justice is determined by Political Parties…If this is the case, I as an American, would demand release of every incarcerated soul, convicted for any Offense, while the Democrats have been in charge.
October 30th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
When in 60 or so cases the courts have ALWAYS ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to sue, it is likely that the law really says that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue. If you don’t like it, change the law. OR, get someone with standing to sue, such as McCain or Palin.
October 30th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
@rrichardson-George Soeos, Rupert Murdoch & etc. have standing to do whatever they want…Ever wonder why???
November 3rd, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Hi Dr Taitz. I’m one of your supporters here in California and voted for you as a write in for Secretary of State. I am wondering if you could please tell us why your name is not appearing on the results? Also, what is the progress of your lawsuit against Dunn? Should they nullify the election so that you can be put on the Republican ticket? This has gone on long enough. You are the only person in this country that has a strong case against the USURPER. You are also the only attorney with the GUTS to fight the corruption. Stand strong and continue to fight for us!
Jaques