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 Len Porochnia

Posted on | September 19, 2009 | 7 Comments

From:
re is no celebration at the ruling in CA regarding Obama’s eligibility issue?
 
He has to produce the documents that he has spent $1.5MM against disclosing? The coup-de-grace seems to have been delivered and yet not even the alternative media is dicussing it. Are there interests which are reaping a financial world wind from the recent resistance to Obama (like talk-radio) so that they are willing to let this challenge go unnoticed?
 
Is not the point of all this opposition to remove this usuper and his gang of criminals from office? If so, why let the best opportunity for doing so go unnoticed and unexploited?
 
There’s something wrong with this picture and I have the feeling it has something to do with ratings and money. How corrupt, exactly, has America become? To what extent is it driven by maximizing income and profits? To what extent is it motivated by principles and justice? Or do even the conservative media only pay lip service to the Constitution and our founding principles when it offers them financial gain?
 
We have the criminal backed into a corner but won’t finish him off. I don’t get it!
Category: Uncategorized

Comments

7 Responses to “from reader Len Porochnia”

  1. William
    September 19th, 2009 @ 9:22 am

    Dear Dr. Orly,
    Leo Donofrio has written an interesting article pertaining to your discovery in Judge Carters orders and the DOJ asking for dismissal. It follows:

    Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:

    All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

    Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

    Leo,
    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

    In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

    As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

    With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

    Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing ,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

    They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…

    The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

    Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.
    (See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

    The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

    This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
    There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see no official explanation available to the public.

    Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

    Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

    1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

    NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
    Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

    – Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.
    – Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

    Don’t limit the deposition to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.
    2.Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers in those depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

    After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.
    District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

    In my opinion, (Leo Donofrio) this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved.

  2. BlackSunshine84
    September 19th, 2009 @ 9:42 am

    Is Dr. Taitz in touch with Leo Donofrio or atleast following his blog, NaturalBornCitizen? He offered a promising way to defeat Obama’s request for dismissal in his latest post.

  3. William
    September 19th, 2009 @ 10:00 am

    I have an additional question.

    On Jan, 21, 2009 Obama did not repeat the Presidential Oath correctly in front of thirty million people, as it must be done. 40 minutes later he signed into law an Executive order sealing all his personal information.

    On Jan,22,2009 10:00 a.m. he was required to repeat the oath, word for word in order to hold the office of “President of the United States” as stated by them, to make it “Official”.

    Therefore it appears that his Executive Order would be “Null and Void” since he was not “Officially” the President when he signed it!

    Shouldn’t his personal information still be public? Although this is a technicality, many institutions have “Blocked” anyone attempting to obtain his personal information, such as Universities, thus quoting the Executive Order, which appears to be worthless.

    I wonder what Judge Carter would say to that one?

  4. Bruce Steadman
    September 19th, 2009 @ 11:34 am

    Joan Swirsky wrote an excellent article for “Canada Free Press” published on August 25 and titled, “Who is Behind Quashing the Birth Certificate Issue?”. You can easily access the article at the joanswirsky website. I think it helps answer some of your questions.

  5. Gary W
    September 19th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    Neither do I, Orly. Every day finds me even more flabbergasted and confused at how, either lazy, or, I guess, sorry – I haven’t decided which, our trusted conservative media has been. The eligibility question, to my thinking, is the final, and most powerful, nail in our corrupt, false president’s coffin.

    I suppose they’re waiting on the proverbial smoking gun before sticking their necks out. You know, I thought we already had the smoking gun, thanks to you, but I guess they’re wanting to see the serial and model number of the smoking gun before they feel they can jump on.

    And you know full well it’s going to happen! When they can’t ignore it any longer, everybody, and that includes CNN and, shoot, everybody, will be falling all over themselves to get on the air with this. But it’s going to take dead for sure evidence that he is what we already know he is. So, it’s up to you, Orly, to put this person away.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why real Americans, contrasted against, you know, tree hugging, bed wetting, weenie-@#& liberals, haven’t joined in on this just cause? Are people THIS apathetic?!! Our Constitution is what we owe our great nation’s success to. Yes, the people have been the work horses, but only under the game plan our forefathers laid out for us. It’s like trying to get an infinitely complex business up and running and carrying it through to profitability without sticking to a business plan. It’s not going to work. The execution of every great idea began with that idea and the ability to put that idea in writing. That is what our forefathers did for us.

    Through their wisdom, they foresaw the rough spots, and made provisions in their game plan to deal with them. But if we’re not going to stay with that game plan, I’m afraid we won’t be here for long, or, well, much longer, at least.

    I write my representative and senators often, as well as Hannity and other individuals at Fox, and I ask them why they don’t nail this usurper. Why? That’s all I want to know. You know what? They never answer. Now, I know they’re busy people, but for goodness sake, they know what we’re up against! They know what Obama is trying to do! But they, and everybody, tries to chip away at his plan around the edges, with each individual issue. Why not take him down with the big enchilada, with one mighty swing – the eligibility issue? If everyone, and I do mean those that count – real Americans, would call, write, and otherwise flood congress, Fox and all the mainstream media, demanding something be done against this very evil man, it would eventually hit the flooding point that they simply couldn’t ignore any longer.

    Please help us through this, Orly. We’re all counting on you.

  6. NewEnglandPatriot
    September 19th, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

    I think it’s because they’re afraid that, like so many of the other lawsuits, it won’t prevail. I believe Orly WILL prevail, but the media have been so scared of this crisis because they are mostly responsible for creating it.

    They didn’t properly research Obama and disseminate real background information about him before the election. They led everyone down a primrose path, distorting what he really represented and obfuscating everything in his past. The media moguls are denying “the birthers” movement vehemently to try to give the impression to the public that there really is nothing wrong with Obama and therefore their past coverage of him.

    The media probably thought they could keep this under wraps. But now MSNBC and others are ASKING Orly to go on their programs…they are trying to destroy her but she knows better and handles their bias very well. At this point, the more this issue is on TV screens across the country, the better, because it can only hurt the media and help us. As soon as Orly states that there is a case alive in Judge Carter’s court, people will have the information they need. At that point people will know that, contrary to what MSNBC says, there IS an issue to be decided.

    The media are hanging on to see what their fate will be now that it is obvious that the lid will be blown off of this thing. Their blind support for Obama will dissolve them. CBS, NBC and ABC are just about off the air now, and this massive collusion of propaganda and deception will finish them off. That’s why they don’t want to cover it. Fox News is included in this…they were derelict in their duties, too, and didn’t change their tune until recently. Probably Rupert Murdoch realized that if Obama gets his way, Fox News will be muzzled or off the air. So now maybe he’s willing to fight a little bit.

  7. ch
    September 19th, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

    I read the regulatory agency threatened Fox News with penalties if they did not stop negative about Obama. So Oreilly changed his tune. I think they have placed people in certain agencies who are controlling free speech.