Latest pleadings in Taitz v Ruemmler (White House Counsel) sent to DC court
Posted on | October 10, 2011 | 17 Comments
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
ATTORNEY PRO SE
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY, STE 100
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
TEL: (949) 683-5411; FAX (949) 766-7603
E-MAIL: ORLY.TAITZ@GMAIL.COM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §
Plaintiff, § Freedom of information violation
§ 5USC §552
v. § CASE # 11-cv-421
§ Honorable Royce Lamberth
Kathy Ruemmler in her capacity § presiding
as the White House counsel § Opposition to Defendant’s
and custodian of records § motion for summary judgment and
§ Oral argument and emergency 20
day hearing requested
Plaintiff herein, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, hereinafter “Taitz” opposes Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Opposition is based on the memorandum of points and authorities attached herein and on oral argument, that is requested by the Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant filed her motion for summary judgment based upon one point only. She is claiming, that she is not subject to FOIA. Plaintiff opposes thin claim for following reasons:
A. DEFENDANT CONCEDES, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, SUBJECT TO FOIA
Defendant states:” As revised in 1974, FOIA defines the term “agency” to include any department, military, department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government, including the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT), or any independent regulatory agency. ” 5 U.S.C. §552(f) (emphasis added).
Defendant brings forward Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 566 F. 3d at 222-23 (“common to every cause in which we have held that an EOP (Executive Office of the President) unit is subject to FOIA has been a finding that the entity in question “wielded substantial authority independently of the president” (quoting Sweetland v Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 854 (D.C. Cir 1995) (per curiam))).
B. FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ROBERT BAUER WIELDED AUTHORITY INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PRESIDENT AND SUBJECT TO FOIA IN REGARDS TO THOSE FUNCTIONS
Plaintiff agrees with the defense in that usually White House Counsel is engaged in advising the President and such advise would not be subject to FOIA. Plaintiff points to Exhibit 1, April 27, 2011, 8:48am Press conference, given by the White House Counsel Robert Bauer, Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer and Press Secretary Jay Carney. In this case,- White House Counsel wielded upon himself substantial authority, independently of the President. Bauer colluded with a number of other individuals to put forward a computer generated forgery, claiming it to be a certified true and correct copy of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate in order to legitimize Mr. Obama’s presidency, shield Mr. Obama from this forgery, mislead media and public at large and serve as a custodian of the record in question.
At the press conference on April 27, 2011, held at 8:48 am, right before the press conference, conducted by the President, Mr. Robert Bauer, White House Counsel appeared before the reporters, claiming to have two separate certified copies of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. (See Exhibit 1A, affidavit of Orly Taitz, attesting to the fact, that the Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the WhiteHouse.gov posting of the April 27 press conference by Bauer, Carney and Pfeiffer https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-4272011″During the press conference even mostly far left, pro-Obama reporters doubted authenticity of the document
Q “And this is going to sound-I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any-(laughter)
Q “Will the President be holding it?”
Mr. Pfeiffer: “He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will-the Health Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -what they have on file. As Bob (Bauer-WH counsel) said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
Mr. Bauer: And you’ll see the letter from the director of Health Department that states she oversaw the copy and is attesting to it.”
Clearly, in this instance Mr. Bauer went outside the traditional function of advising the President and goes further buy colluding with others in attempting to authenticate forgery and shielding Mr. Obama.
Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 clearly show, that the document, that Mr. Bauer referred to is a forgery.
a. Mr. Bauer claims that the document is a copy of the original on file. In those years, in 1961, the documents were on white paper, not green safety paper. Alleged true and correct copy would be on white paper, which shows, that the “document” provided to the public is not a copy of the original 1961 document.
b. Multiple certified copies of similar long form birth certificates are readily available on the Internet, among them a long form birth certificate of Susan Nordyke, who was born just one day after Mr. Obama, on August 5th, 1961. It shows clear signs of paper aging, with multiple yellow stains all over the document. Enlarged Nordyke long form birth certificate is provided as Exhibit 6. Obama’ alleged certified copy does not contain any paper aging signs, which would be expected in a 50 year old document. Unless former White House Counsel, Robert Bauer, invented an elixir of youth, which he sprinkled all over the document, such lack of paper aging in a 50 year old document is impossible.
c. Even if one was to copy the document in question on safety paper, he would see four defined borders of the document. While forgers attempted to create a border on the left side of the document, which resembles a fold in the book, there is no border on the right. The document blends with the background of the safety paper, which is a clear sign of forgery.
d. Affidavit of Adobe illustrator expert, Chito Papa, shows that the document was created on a computer by positioning layers of different document, cutting and pasting parts of different documents and filling in the blanks with computer graphics. This is clearly visible by examining the signature of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. It appears they lifted the signature of a later document, where she signed as Stanley Ann D. Soetoro. They deleted Soetoro from the signature made by ink and added to letter D “unham Obama” by virtue of computer graphics, which didn’t even exist 50 years ago. Additionally, why would Ms. Dunham sign part of her signature in ink and the rest by computer graphics?
e. As evidenced by affidavits of Paul Irey and Douglas Vogt, forgers used multiple types of typesetting. The letters do not match, which is a clear sign of forgery.
f. There is kerning in the document, meaning that typed letters are encroaching in the space of other letters, which is possible only with computer graphic and not possible with typing used fifty years ago.
g. One can see that the serial number of the document does not match the serial numbers of other documents issued at a time. When one examines attached birth certificate of Susan Nordyke, her certificate number is 10637, lower number, even though the document was signed and issued several days later.
h. There are numerous other signs of forgery within the document, described in Exhibits 2-6.
i. The whole exercise of Perkins Coie Attorney, Judy Corley, travelling to HI sometime on Thursday April 22, right after signing of the request by Obama, in order to provide the Director of Health with the request on Friday, April 23rd and traveling back to DC on April 26, after the document was authenticated and stamped on April 25th, does not make any sense. Corley is a high paid attorney in one of the best connected firms in the country. This is a firm, that places its’ employees as attorney- law clerks to most high ranked judges in the country, and for this reason, dictates the highest rates of compensation. Corley’s hourly billing must be $500 at least, possibly as high as $600 or even $1,000 an hour. For such a highly paid attorney to spend five days on a trip to Hi, might cost as much as $50,000 in legal fees alone, not counting hotel, air fare and incidentals. Why would someone spend such an enormous amount, in order to bring back a document, which costs $50 to send by FedEX or overnight mail? The only reasonable explanation, is to create an aura of legitimacy, authenticity, chain of custody and attempt to cut off any and all attempts to access the original, allegedly on file. What is most telling is that even after such an enormous expense, the troika of Bauer, Pfeiffer and Carney would not allow Obama to even hold the document and would not even leave it for him to look at, during the press conference.
Bauer, Pfeiffer, Carney and others formed a ring within the EOP, where they not only engaged in “wielding substantial authority” in attempting to give an aura of legitimacy, authenticity and chain of custody to this forgery, but they kept the President away from the document, by saying, that he would not even touch it and they will not even have this “document” in the same room, where Obama would be giving his now infamous “birthers are side show and carnival barkers”, kill the messenger speech. As such, actions of the White House counsel in relation to this particular document stripped the exemption from FOIA requests, which is typically granted to the White House counsel. As such, the documents in question, the allegedly existing two separate certified copies of the original 1961 birth certificate of Barack Obama should be provided under FOIA request.
AT ISSUE IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT FORGERY IN PREPARATION OF THE DOCUMENT AND USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AS A CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORD
Yet again following the spirit of the Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Washington, that ruled The court’s unanimous opinion in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Administration, 566 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 2009), said the office was not subject to the FOIA “because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the President and his staff and therefore, under [D.C. Circuit] precedent, lacks substantial independent authority.” The FOIA, at 5 U.S.C. 552(a), requires covered federal entities to disclose information to the public unless the requested information falls within one of the statute’s exemptions.
Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith authored the opinion, which will allow the OA to keep information about millions of missing e-mails from the George W. Bush Administration secret. The e-mails were lost during Bush’s first term when the administration failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail as it switched to a new system.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed the federal lawsuit after the OA failed to comply with CREW’s April 2007 FOIA request for all available information surrounding the missing e-mails, including reports analyzing potential problems with the system, records of retained e-mails and possibly missing messages themselves and other documents discussing plans to find the missing e-mails. The OA initially said it would comply with the request, but did not turn over any information, or provide a timetable for when it would do so.
According to the court opinion, the OA eventually produced some of the records, but only “as a matter of administrative discretion.” OA refused to turn more than 3,000 pages of potentially responsive records.
Clearly the case at hand is different from all other FOIA cases, as it does not deal with the subject matter of the documents, but it deals with the authenticity of the document made public by the President and his staff. Moreover, Mr. Obama and the Democratic National committee are currently selling T-shirts and mugs with the imprint of the alleged certified copy of his 1961 birth certificate. Mr. Obama is raising funds for his reelection campaign by selling those T-shirts and mugs and flaunting the document in question in front of the whole Nation. This case differs from Citizens for Responsibility in that the substance of the document is no longer at issue, the only knowledge that the Plaintiff and the Nation are attempting to gain, is whether the document is genuine. On the issue of authenticity of the document the office of the White House Counsel acted not only with substantial independent authority, but also with breathtaking arrogance or criminality, by keeping the actual document away from the president, where when asked
Q “Will the President be holding it?”
Mr. Pfeiffer, communications director, giving press conference together with the White House Counsel responded “He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so”. The White House Counsel, Communications Director and Press Secretary took upon themselves an independent authority to keep any knowledge of the authenticity of the document away from the President. They made and independent decision, where the President would not even hold the document in his hands and it will not be left in the room for him to see. This behavior shows, that
a. The substance of the document was already released
b. The knowledge of authenticity of the document was kept away from the President, or at least an impression is created, that the President had no knowledge in regards to its authenticity. The President was treated either as a puppet by a clique of individuals with real authority or those individuals were trying to create an impression, that the President is a puppet. It is clear, that on the issue of authenticity of the document, White House Counsel exceeded the parameters given to him by law, as an adviser, and undertook independent authority, which stripped the office of the White House Counsel of the usual protection of FOIA exemption as far as this particular document is concerned.
CRIMINALITY EXCEEDS FOIA EXEMPTION PROTECTION AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MEANINGFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM OTHER BRANCHES IN THE GOVERNMENT, FOIA BECOMES THE ONLY REAL MEAN OF TRANSPARENCY AND CRIME ABATEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT
The only prior case, resembling ObamaFraudGate is Watergate. During Watergate there were no FOIA requests, but John Dean, White House counsel cooperated with the FBI and the Department of Justice. Today we leave in a time, where no independent investigation is being done by either Congress or the Department of Justice. All requests for assistance sent to the Attorney General went unanswered. Today we live in a time, where our Attorney General Eric Holder, not only did not act to assure legitimacy of the U.S. Presidency in ObamafraudGate, but he appears to be knowingly allowing sales of assault weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. As such, the citizens of this nation cannot rely on the Department of Justice to assure lawful conduct in the White house. The only avenue left for the citizens, such as Plaintiffs, is through the FOIA requests, to get knowledge in regards to authenticity of records and demand the court to further assure lawfulness of behavior of the defendant.
Conclusion
Due to the fact, that the White House Counsel exceeded his authority of advising the President and engaged in behavior, where he exerted independent authority on the issue of authenticity of the alleged certified copy of Mr. Obama’s 1961 long form birth certificate, and kept the authenticity of the document away from the President, his actions exceeded usual protection of FOIA exemption, so the FOIA request should be granted.
Exhibit 1
Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 27, 2011
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:48 A.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we’ll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer.
MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.
If you would just give me a minute to — indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren’t around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents.
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.
To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.
That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was —
Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.
Q Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.
That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why — the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.
But it became an issue again. And it went to — essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we’re having in this country.
And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should — that’s the debate we should be having yet.
What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans — including the President — they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction.
That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term — it would have been in his — probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.
And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.
MR. CARNEY: I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this — not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.
MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.
Go ahead, Bob.
MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.
And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday — counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.
The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request — written, signed request — along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.
The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th — the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon.
Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for.
However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter.
MR. PFEIFFER: We’ll be happy to take some questions.
Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.
Q Okay.
MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.
Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to — that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?
MR. PFEIFFER: They are both — the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see — and Bob can walk you through it — it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.
If you could just explain the difference.
MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.
The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.
So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.
Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.
Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?
MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan —
MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.
Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)
I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.
And as I said earlier, it probably would have been — a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.
And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this — it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.
Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?
MR. PFEIFFER: There has been — no one that I can recall actually asked us to — we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one — it never — up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until — I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday —
Q When you say that, you mean certification — you released the certification?
MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants — requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.
Q And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)
Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to —
Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.
Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical —
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.
Q You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you —
Q Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.
Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?
MR. PFEIFFER: The President — this in itself — when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long.
Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based — in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don’t want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the —
MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I’m not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like — let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.
And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he’ll talk about this when he gets here — decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a — this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we’re facing.
It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.
Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of — sort of that bridge between what you’re calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?
MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves.
Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?
MR. PFEIFFER: I’d refer any questions on the election to the campaign.
Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD —
MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don’t have — but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don’t have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this — questions about personnel tomorrow.
Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not — and I’m going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?
MR. PFEIFFER: The point I’d make is that we weren’t the ones who — we’re not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to — and when he comes down here this morning he’ll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.
Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his White House corroborate?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)
Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are — okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can’t say anything.
MR. CARNEY: Bill, you’re free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I’m just saying that we don’t have a personnel announcement for you today.
Q And he’ll tomorrow, he’ll cover all the aforementioned switches?
MR. CARNEY: We’ll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.
Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I’m wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.
MR. CARNEY: Well, what we’ve said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other — hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly.
In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we’ll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don’t get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do.
And we’re confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best.
Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don’t want to see it as part of the final package?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to — the President believes — that’s one of the reasons why we’re doing this right now — we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we’re going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow.
And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about — long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we’re talking about this morning.
Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow — I mean, people have been asking about —
MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.
So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.
Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking —
MR. CARNEY: Well, I said — I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we’ve had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don’t have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this.
Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that this morning.
Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So —
MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.
Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?
MR. PFEIFFER: No.
Q Just to clarify what this document is —
MR. PFEIFFER: This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.
Q How did it get here?
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.
Q Last night?
MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.
Q What time?
MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Q When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that?
Q When was this gaggle put on — when was this planned?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”
Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?
MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate.
Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?
MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s — a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.
Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that’s all there is to the waiver process?
MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom — and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.
The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form.
So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest — the President — so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.
Q Do we have the letter from the President —
MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet.
Q And you went to Hawaii?
MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the — the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter — signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate.
Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation — representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this?
MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think — as we said from the beginning when we talked about — when I did from this podium — about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.
Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on?
MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition — beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.
MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here.
MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes.
Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent?
MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally.
Thanks.
END 9:18 A.M. EDT
Exhibit 1A
AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ
I, Orly Taitz, am a licensed attorney and have personal knowledge of the facts described below, to which I will competently testify in court :
Attached transcript of the White House press conference, is a true and correct copy of such conference, that I downloaded from the official white House site https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-4272011
I declare under penalty of perjury, above facts are true and correct
/s/ Orly Taitz 10/10/2011
Certificate of service
I attest, that the true and correct copy of the above Opposition to the MSJ was served on 10.10.2011 on the Defendant via her attorney, Assistant US attorney Patrick Nemeroff by first class mail and via ECF
Comments
17 Responses to “Latest pleadings in Taitz v Ruemmler (White House Counsel) sent to DC court”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
October 11th, 2011 @ 2:42 am
Robert Bauer should be indicted for being accessory to the crime of forging public documents, disbarred and sent to prison.
October 11th, 2011 @ 5:35 am
” I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.”
Why? Because they do not want mass media coverage of the alleged long form birth certificate.
So much for the most transparent and open administration.
October 11th, 2011 @ 5:59 am
Bauer is another lawyer speaking Broken English typical of foreigners usually from Germany. Obama included but from Thailand. Berg, Kreep, Lamberth, Bauer, Obama. The female lawyer for Obama in the same boat. A Bauer transcript hard to find. See above.
October 11th, 2011 @ 6:08 am
@ Chito
As an accessory to whom?
October 11th, 2011 @ 6:50 am
Dr. Orly,
This is a slam dunk legal filling. This should be the final nail in the coffin. I am confident you will win tomorrow in HI and this case will be your next legal victory.
God Bless and have a safe trip.
October 11th, 2011 @ 8:03 am
Robert Bauer isn’t the only one who should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for being an accessory/co-conspirator in public document forgery, which is a felony. So should everyone who had anything to do with producing, printing, scanning, posting and/or proclaiming the authenticity of every so-called original “birth certificate” of Barack Hussein Obama posted online since August 2008 — including Barack Hussein Obama.
October 11th, 2011 @ 8:57 am
Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder should also be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for not enforcing the Defense Of Marriage Act, the Civil Rights Act (voter intimidation by the Black Panthers) and Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10 (homosexual exclusion from military law). Re the latter note that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (“DADT”) was simply a policy which, in essence, obfuscated said Public Law and the repeal of DADT means that any non-heterosexual in the military who “comes out” must be discharged.
October 11th, 2011 @ 9:15 am
What date is the hearing?
October 11th, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
Ruemmler, Bauer, Berg, Kreep, Lamberth, Obama, all speak Broken English and thus are foreigners. Probably from Germany while Obama is from Thailand. All part of Nazi Germany SPY infiltration of American government since WWII. The Fourth Reich.
October 11th, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
Very compelling argument Orly! I believe it is your best yet. There’s a few typos if you haven’t submitted it yet, but the points are dead on! Give ’em hell in Hawaii!
Congratulations for what you’ve achieved in your life so far! Good luck and God bless you!
October 12th, 2011 @ 12:58 am
@ The Truth
This case is not in Hawaii.
October 12th, 2011 @ 4:04 am
> What is most telling is that even after such an enormous expense, the troika of Bauer, Pfeiffer and Carney would not allow Obama to even hold the document and would not even leave it for him to look at, during the press conference.
And if they had, you’d go “he switched it for a forgery when no-one was looking”. So?
December 22nd, 2011 @ 6:32 am
… [Trackback]…
[…] Read More: orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26419 […]…
February 11th, 2012 @ 3:22 am
Hi there very nice web site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?I’m glad to find numerous helpful information here within the put up, we’d like work out more strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
February 11th, 2012 @ 3:22 am
I’ve been surfing online more than three hours nowadays, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s lovely worth sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the net can be much more useful than ever before.
February 11th, 2012 @ 3:24 am
Its such as you read my mind! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, such as you wrote the e book in it or something. I think that you just can do with a few p.c. to force the message house a little bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely be back.
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:53 pm
I just added this blog site to my google reader, great stuff. Can’t get enough!