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

Very important. An emergency Writ of Mandamus is being submitted in the US court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Posted on | November 5, 2011 | 3 Comments

CASE #11-5306

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________________

 

Dr. Orly Taitz,

 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Kathy Ruemmler,

 

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________

 

Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 __________________

 

CSB #223433

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy

Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com


STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT AND ISSUES PRESENTED

On October 17th 2011 US District Judge, Royce Lamberth dismissed two related cases: Taitz v Astrue 11-405 RCL USDC DC and Taitz v Ruemmler 11-421 RCL USDC DC. In those cases Plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq, was seeking access to original document based on Freedom of Information Act 5U.S.§552. She was seeking access to the original application of the Connecticut Social Security number, which Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States, is using based on his tax returns and based on his Selective Service certification, which was never legally assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. She was also seeking access to the original long form birth certificate, allegedly issued to Mr. Obama in 1961, in light of the fact, that according to multiple statement affidavits, presented to court, an alleged certified copy of the above document, represents a computer generated forgery. The court stated in its final ruling: “The President released his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, and posted a copy on the White House web site. The certificate confirms the President’s birth in Honolulu, HI. See Michael D. Sheer, “With Document, Obama Seeks to end “Birther” issue, “The New York  Times, Apr. 28, 2011, at A1.” (Exhibit 1 Final order by Judge Lamberth in Taitz v Ruemmler 11-421 RCL)

 As Judge Lamberth  is admitting in his own ruling, that he believes a document of national importance to be genuine based on a worthless  article in New York Times, which in turn is based on unauthenticated piece of paper posted on line, Appellant is seeking a Writ of Mandamus from this court directing the District judge Royce Lamberth to order inspection of the original, allowing the  Petitioner and her forensic document experts to examine the original birth certificate in question, which is allegedly kept in the Health Department of the State of Hawaii.   This court has jurisdiction to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §1651.

§ 1651. Writs

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

This Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is based on 28 U.S.C §1651.

For three years Barack Obama, holding position of the President of the United States, refused to release to the public his long form birth certificate, which was the basis of his eligibility to the U.S. Presidency, as a natural born U.S. citizen. On May 2, 2011, Orly Taitz, Petitioner herein,  was scheduled to  present Obama eligibility challenge at the oral argument in the 9th Circuit court of Appeals, where she represented 40 Appellants,  among them Dr. Alan Keyes, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, 10 state Representatives from all over the country and 30 members of the U.S. military. A few days before aforementioned hearing Mr. Obama posted on the Internet what he claimed to be a certified copy of his 1961 original birth certificate. On April 27, 2011 white House counsel, Robert Bauer, held a press conference, where a copy of the above document was presented. Members of the media questioned authenticity of the document and asked if the original will be provided.

Neither Mr. Obama, nor White House counsel, nor Director of Health of Hawaii  ever provided the original document.

Within days of posting of the alleged copy on the Internet, petitioner herein received multiple affidavits from experts, attesting to the fact, that the document posted by Mr. Obama on line represents a computer generated forgery and not a true and correct copy of  the original birth certificate. (Exhibits 2,3, 4)    At the same time Taitz received information from three licensed investigators: Neil Sankey, Susan Daniels and Senior Deportation officer of the Department of Homeland security John Sampson,   showing that according to national commercial databases Barack Obama is using a Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, issued in the state of Connecticut in and around March 28, 1977.   However  at a time,  Mr. Obama did not reside in Connecticut and there is no record of him even visiting Connecticut at the time, when the lawful holder of this number applied for his Social Security number in the state of Connecticut. This is significant, as a person, who does not have a valid birth certificate has to resort to use of stolen and fraudulently obtained social security numbers of deceased individuals. 

Taitz verified this number on the official U.S. government website for the Selective Service www.sss.gov, by entering the above number, name Barack Obama and his date of birth, August 4, 1961, and getting a positive response, showing that CT SSN xxx-xx-4425 was indeed used by Obama in his Selective Service Registration.

Taitz received an affidavit of an adobe illustrator Chito Papa, showing that when Barack Obama posted his tax returns on line, he originally did not flatten the file and his full unredacted Social Security number became evident to the public. The number was also the aforementioned xxx-xx-4425.

Taitz received an affidavit from one Linda Jordan, who used E-Verify official web site, which showed that there is no match between Obama’s name and that Social Security number according to the official records of SSA.

Taitz received an e-mail from a retired Colonel of the U.S. military, Col. Gregory Holister, showing that he verified the records of Selective Service and SSNVS (Social Security Number Verification systems)    

As of now, overwhelming evidence shows Obama using a forged birth certificate and a fraudulently obtained Social Security number.

Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 states that “[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.”  With regard to duplicates and public or official records, the rules state in pertinent part as follows:

A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original,… or by mechanical or electronic re-recording,… or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(4).

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (l) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Federal Rule of Evidence 1003. (emphasis added)

Affidavits of Irey, Vogt and Papa raise a genuine question regarding authenticity of  alleged certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. In Taitz v Ruemmler and Taitz v Astrue the court completely disregarded all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, which showed the documents in question to be forged and fraudulently obtained and based its decision on an article in the New York times, which is in turn based on unauthenticated piece of paper posted on line.

It is unthinkable, but it appears, that the rules of evidence no longer exist. US judiciary in the case of National importance, dealing with the legitimacy of the US President, is resembling an Orwellian animal farm, where the rules of law and rules of evidence are not carved in stone, but scribbled in chalk, only to be erased and written de novo overnight by a  ruling “politburo” of questionable jurisdiction.

This is a case of national importance, not only because of Mr. Obama’s Presidential run in 2008, which is a subject of the case at hand, but also, due to the fact, that Mr. Obama placed his name on the ballot as a presidential candidate for 2012.  New Hampshire primary registration ended on October 28, 2011. According to the office of the Secretary of State of New Hampshire, the ballots will be printed within days.

 Judge Lamberth showed clear case of an abuse of judicial discretion by disregarding any and all evidence presented and giving an aura of authenticity and elevating to legitimacy a news paper article based on an unauthenticated Internet image, without allowing inspection of the original, particularly in light of multiple expert affidavits, attesting to forgery.

It is essential and exigent for this court to issue an emergency writ of Mandamus ordering the lower Court to compel examination of the original long form birth certificate of Mr. Obama, which was used by reference  by the court in Taitz v Ruemmler.

Such relief will not prejudice  Ms. Ruemmler or Mr. Obama, as Mr. Obama has already released the alleged certified copy and inspection of the original cannot be prejudicial.

There is no hardship on Mr. Obama or Ms. Ruemmler, as they are not required to do anything.

There is tremendous importance for the public at large to know whether the President is legitimate for the position occupied, as the well -being of the nation and national security is at stake.

 Due to all of the above Petitioner respectfully is asking for an emergency Writ of Mandemus to be granted by this Honorable court.     

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Category: Obama Fraud Gate, orly taitz attorney, Orly Taitz civil rights leader, Orly Taitz doctor and attorney, Orly Taitz for U.S. Senate 2012, Orly Taitz Hawaii, Orly Taitz Obama birth certificate

Comments

3 Responses to “Very important. An emergency Writ of Mandamus is being submitted in the US court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit”

  1. JUDITH BAILEY
    November 6th, 2011 @ 7:00 am

    WONDER WHY THE JUDGE WILL NOT INSPECT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? HE IS AFRAID OF UNCOVERING THE TRUTH. TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION, THIS JUDGE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. CAN THE PEOPLE IMPEACH HIM? WAS HE APPOINTED? IF SO THEN THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE ON ANY JUDGE EVEN THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT NOT THOSE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND.

  2. Patty
    November 6th, 2011 @ 9:23 am

    Judith, dear, the Constitution grants life tenure to the federal judges. Limiting the terms of federal judges and Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment.

    The Founding Fathers built in life terms for the judiciary so it would be independent of the political process and judges would make rulings based on the law rather on evanescent political calculations. It also keeps the composition of the court fairly stable, so that a string of Democratic presidents wouldn’t necessarily mean a completely liberal court.

    Only impeachment by the House and trial and conviction by the Senate can remove him, so, no, “the people” cannot impeach Judge Lamberth.

  3. john
    November 8th, 2011 @ 4:25 am

    Yes, Judith, it might be a good idea to read through the Constitution a few times and see if you can make any sense of it.
    By the way, WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Leave a Reply