Posted on | September 30, 2011 | 32 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
In Propria Persona
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy., Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ., )
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
)
DISMISS PETITION FOR
)
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL )
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE )
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF )
HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS )
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR, ) Hearing:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF ) Date: October 12,
2011
HAWAII, )
Time: 8:30 a.m.
)
Judge: Hon. Rhonda
A. )
Nishimura
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. ("Dr. Taitz") hereby opposes
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss her Petition for a Writ of Mandamus as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Dr. Taitz seeks to authenticate the "birth certificate"
released by Barack Obama on April 27, 2011 by comparing that PDF image
with any records that might be on file in the Hawaii Department of
Health. To that end she requested, by subpoena issued under the power
of a Federal Court, the right to view the record. Such request was met
only with objections prompting the within action seeking an order from
this Honorable Court requiring the Director of Health to make the
questioned records available for assessment.
The usual privacy concerns advanced by holders of vital
statistics records should be overcome by the release of the records by
the purported holder himself—in this case, Barack Obama.
Nevertheless, Defendants continue to withhold such
documents in spite of the obvious national importance of the issue.
They advance two procedural arguments and one substantive argument in
their Motion to Dismiss. They argue (1) lack of personal service for
insufficiency of service of process, (2) lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
This Opposition addresses those claims in reverse order,
seriatum.
II. THE RECORDS SOUGHT CAN AND SHOULD BE RELEASED UNDER
HAWAII LAW AND ON PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS.
Defendants endeavor to establish that Hawaii Revised
Statutes section 338-18 "prohibits" disclosure of Barack Obama's
alleged "birth certificate" which "certificate" has now already been
purportedly disclosed by Obama himself.
The heart of Defendants' substantive argument is that HRS
section 338-18 allows only a certain enumerated list of persons with a
"direct and tangible interest" to access Hawaii's public health
records. (See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at pp. 6-8) Defendants
parse the statute but fail to acknowledge that the list of "directly
and tangibly interested" parties to which such a vital record can be
disclosed is not exhaustive by the terms of the statute, nor has it
been interpreted to be so by a court of competent jurisdiction or in
this peculiar and compelling circumstance. Defendants cite not to any
case law for their proposition of exclusivity, but merely to an
"Office of Information Practices" Opinion. (See Defendants' Motion at
pp. 7-9). Such an administrative "opinion" is not binding on this
Honorable Court.
In their attempts to encourage the Court to read the list
of "directly and tangibly interested" parties as exhaustive rather
than illustrative, Defendants fail to reference the recent case of
Justice v. Fuddy, 125 Hawai'i 104, 253 P.3d 665 (2011), which dealt
with this sort of request before Obama's public release of a PDF image
of a "birth certificate" in April 2011. Significantly, the Court in
Justice did not hold, and did not specifically address, whether the
list of directly and tangibly interested persons is exlusive or not.
Also, it is important to note that the Justice decision
was issued weeks before the White House released its PDF image of the
"Birth Certificate" on April 27, 2011—the suspicious image questioned
by Dr. Taitz and others.
While the Court in Justice denied the plaintiff access to
Obama's "birth certificate" allegedly maintained in Hawaii's official
records, Obama's release of the purported PDF image of a birth
certificate alters the calculus set forth in Justice, which tended to
dismiss the interest of the plaintiff in that case as a kind of inert
and idle curiosity.
In the wake of the release of the image of the alleged
"Birth Certificate" by Obama the inquiry becomes one not of simply
viewing the "confidential" private vital records of an individual for
curiosity's sake, or for the sake of some sort of fishing expedition,
but comparing, verifying and authenticating the sharply questioned
"actual" "Birth Certificate" (if any) in the official record with the
PDF image of the document released by its purported holder.
Dr. Taitz raises serious questions about the authenticity
of the document released by Obama and makes such allegations plain in
her Petition/Complaint to this Honorable Court. These questions,
coupled with the prior release of an image of the questioned document,
compels the Court to grant access to this one record in this historic
circumstance.
The Justice decision makes clear that a Court "may also
consider the reason and spirit of the law, and the cause which induced
the legislature to enact it to discover its true meaning." Justice at
125 Hawai'i 104, 110, 253 P.3d 665, 670.
It cannot be said that the State must maintain any further
alleged "privacy interest" under statute or public policy, as the
subject of that confidentiality has most certainly waived it by
purporting to release the vital record itself.
The Justice decision cited various reasons for finding
that the Plaintiff did not have a basis to release the records under
HRS section 338-18. Chief among them was the observation that,
"Moreover, Plaintiff's complaint did not allege any basis for
questioning that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that he
is eligible to serve as President." See Justice at 125 Hawai'i 104,
113, 253 P.3d 665, 673. Conversely Dr. Taitz's assertion in this case
expressly states that the release of the questioned "Birth
Certificate" raises a high degree of suspicion and requires
authentication. (See paragraphs 19 -34 of Dr. Taitz's Complaint in
this matter.)
Moreover, when a document has already been publicly
disclosed on a matter of grave national import, it can hardly be said
that the holder of the record retains any sort of privacy interest in
the mere viewing of a document that has allegedly already been
disclosed. Public policy concerns compel production of such previously
released record for verification purposes only. This is the basis of
Dr. Taitz's claim under the UIPA: for "[g]overnment records pursuant
to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or
safety of any individual[.]" HRS § 92F–12(b)(3) (1993).
Indeed, the Hawaii courts have a history of weighing
public policy considerations strongly when assessing whether to make
otherwise confidential records or procedures available for public
knowledge. For example, the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that,
"[w]hen analyzing the public interest exception, [it] look[s] to (1)
the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the
desirability of an authoritative determination for future guidance of
public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the
question." Hamilton v. Jones, 119 Hawai'i at 6–7, 193 P.3d at 844–45.
Further, "[T]he cases in this jurisdiction that have
applied the public interest exception have focused largely on
political or legislative issues that affect a significant number of
Hawai'i residents. For example, in Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai'i 323, 172 P.
3d 1067 (2007), the Court held that the public interest exception
applied because it was "in the public's interest for this court to
review the family court's ruling that Hawaii's grandparent visitation
statute [was] unconstitutional on its face." Doe at 327, 172 P.3d at
1071.
Additionally, in Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai'i 302,
162 P.3d 696 (2007), the Court held that the subject appeal was of a
public nature because the outcome would affect all state and county
employees. Id. at 333, 162 P.3d at 727. Likewise, in Right to Know
Committee v. City & County of Honolulu, 117 Hawai'i 1, 175 P.3d 111
(App. 2007), the Court held that the question presented was of a
public nature because the issue whether the City Council must conduct
its business in full view of the public and in compliance with the
Sunshine Law was more public in nature than private. Id. at 9,
175 P.3d at 119.
Dr. Taitz respectfully submits that in this case the Court
should weigh heavily the public interest that all Hawaiians have in
establishing the authenticity of the PDF image of the "birth
certificate" released by Obama this past April. Any privacy interest
that the holder of the record may have has been waived and the public
quite simply has a right to know if there is a record in the official
records of the State of Hawaii which corresponds to the PDF image of
the Birth Certificate.
III. DR. TAITZ'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BUT RATHER
DECIDED ON ITS MERITS.
Defendants contend the Circuit Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to decide the matter before it in this case. Defendants
contend that Petitions for Writs of Mandamus have been abolished in
the Circuit Courts except in certain circumstances which are not
present in this case. Dr. Taitz does not concede this point, however,
even if Defendants' argument on this point is accepted, Dr. Taitz
submits that this Court could and should proceed to consider the
matter by treating Dr. Taitz' Petition either as a petition for relief
with original jurisdiction arising in the Circuit Court or as an
Agency Appeal to the Circuit Court.
(a) Dr. Taitz submits that this Court could and should
consider this action as an action with original jurisdiction
arising in the Circuit Court, even if it is improperly styled as a
"Petition for Writ of Mandamus."
While the "writ of mandamus" was nominally abolished in
the Circuit Courts under the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
81.1 the rule also states that "….Relief heretofore available by
mandamus may be obtained by appropriate action or by appropriate
motion under the practice prescribed in these rules…." Dr. Taitz asks
this Court to consider her "petition for writ of mandamus" as a
complaint initiating an original action to compel "an official to
perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual" and to thus hear the
matter on its merits.
The Hawaii Supreme court recognized the possiblity of an
action of original jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts even after the
nominal abolition of the title of "Writ of Mandamus" by rule. See Nam
Sing Shak v. McVey, 54 Haw. 274, 506 P.2d 8 (1973).
The Court there stated, "The rule mentioned above [HRCP
81.1] is similar to Rule 81(b) of the Federal rules as to which it is
stated in Hammond v. Hull, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 131 F.2d 23, 25
(1942); 'The remedy which, before adoption of the new Rules of Civil
Procedure, was known as mandamus, is available under the new rules and
is governed by the same principles as formerly governed its
administration.' Original jurisdiction to hear petitioner's claim for
relief is in the circuit court." Id.
The Court may also consider Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw.
125, 504 P.2d 1217 (1972), wherein the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed
and remanded a decision by the Circuit Court for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted and noted,
"The appellants' petition for an alternative writ of mandamus will be
treated as a
complaint." Id. at 130, 1220.
Thus, Dr. Taitz respectfully submits her claim before this
Honorable Court should be treated as a claim for relief with original
jurisdiction arising in the Circuit Court, even if the petition for
relief is improperly styled.
(b) Dr. Taitz's petition may be considered as an agency
appeal.
"The right to appeal is purely statutory and exists only
when jurisdiction is given by some constitutional or statutory
provision." Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't. Employees Ass'n, 107 Hawai'i 178,
184, 111 P.3d 587, 593 (2005). HRS § 91–14 confers jurisdiction on the
circuit court to review "final decision[s] and order[s] in [ ]
contested case[s]." As previously quoted, HRS § 91–14 provides in
relevant part that:
(a) Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order in
a contested
case or by a preliminary ruling of the nature that
deferral of review
pending entry of a subsequent final decision would deprive
appellant
of adequate relief is entitled to judicial review thereof
under this
chapter; but nothing in this section shall be deemed to
prevent resort
to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de
novo, including
the right of trial by jury, provided by law.
Notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter to the contrary, for the
purposes of this
section, the term "person aggrieved" shall include an
agency that is a
party to a contested case proceeding before that agency or
another
agency.
To the extent this Honorable Court declines to find
original jurisdiction to hear Dr. Taitz's petition for relief, she
requests the Court consider it on the basis of Department of Health's
refusal to allow her access to view the requested document.
IV. DR. TAITZ'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAUMUS SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
The basis of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of
Personal Jurisdiction is insufficiency of the service of process.
However, Defendants do not dispute they received service or that they
have actual notice of the proceedings herein. In fact, they have
responded on the merits in this action, thereby waiving any objection
they could properly raise to lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Proof of Service attached to Defendants' Motion as
Exhibit B reflects service by certified mail on both the Director of
Health, the Registrar of the Department of Health, and the Deputy
Attorney General. The return receipts from the Director of Health and
the Registrar of the Department of Health are also attached to the
proof of service.
Had an individual delivered the copies of the documents
directly to the Department of Health, they would have been signed for
by the front desk, as was likely the case with respect to the return
receipts.
If, for some reason, this Court is inclined not to decide
the matter on its merits but instead find service of process
insufficient, Dr. Taitz requests the opportunity to effect personal
service in the manner which may be required by this Court. However,
the Defendants have now appeared on the merits and raised defenses on
the merits in their Motion to Dismiss. That should be sufficient to
overcome objections regarding insufficiency of service of process, as
it is a concession of actual notice and participation in the
proceedings.
V. CONCLUSION.
For all the foregoing reasons, the undersigned
respectfully requests this
Honorable Court deny Defendants' motion on the merits and/or, if there
is a procedural
deficiency of some kind, afford the Petitioner an opportunity to cure
it.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
September 30, 2011
_________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
Category: HOT ITEMS!, LINKS, Latest News, Legal Actions, Letters/
Feedback from Readers, Obama Fraud Gate, Other Criminal or Suspicious
Activities, Supporting Documentation
Reply to opposition to motion for reconsideration, draft 2
Posted on | September 29, 2011 | 2 Comments
Taitz v Astrue Reply to opposition to motion for reconsideration
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ pro se
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. Orly Taitz, in pro se ) Hon. Royce C.
Lamberth
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Case No. 11-cv-00402
v. )
)
Motion for Reconsideration
Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the )
Social Security Administration, )
)
[Request for Oral argument
)
to be held within 20 days]
)
Respondent . )
_________________________________)
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (Hereinafter "Taitz") submits this reply to
opposition to motion for reconsideration and respectfully requests
emergency hearing and oral argument on the merits within 20 days,
based on newly discovered information and based on an assertion of
clear error and manifest injustice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). This motion is based on the instant Memorandum of
points and authorities, exhibits herein, and any matters present at
oral argument.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Opposition by the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Michael
Astrue did not oppose any substantive points of the motion for
reconsideration and the motion should be considered unopposed on the
merits. In case the court believes, that the substantive points were
addressed, the Plaintiff provides the following argument in reply to
opposition and in support for motion for reconsideration.
EMERGENCY SITUATION
Defendant Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security
administration through his attorneys, Department of Justice-US
Attorneys' office, is claiming that the fact that Barack Obama, an
individual without a valid Social Security number according to E-
Verify, is occupying the position of the U.S. President and Commander
in Chief, does not represent an emergency situation and therefore
there should not be a reconsideration.
In response Plaintiff herein is using Your Honor's own lexicon: "They
are either toying with the nation or showing their stupidity".
Taitz provided irrefutable evidence, showing that Barack Hussein Obama
has used in his tax returns and his selective service a Connecticut
Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him
according to E-Verify. Even without E-Verify, fraud is evident, as the
number starts with 042, a number sequence assigned to the state of CT,
where Obama never resided. Can our Commissioner of Social Security and
our Department of Justice led by Eric Holder, be so completely brain -
dead to suggest, that having a criminal with a stolen Social Security
number, a forged birth certificate and an unknown allegiance, does not
represent an emergency?
For Michael Astrue, a licensed attorney, Commissioner of Social
Security Administration; for the US attorneys, representing him, to
even suggest, that there is no "legitimate public interest" in knowing
whether we have a criminal in the White House with a fraudulently
obtained Social Security number, is simply unthinkable, it represents
a total lack of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of
America, that they were sworn to protect. This behavior by the
Commissioner of the Social Security administration and US attorneys
representing him, is simply criminal, it simply amounts to obstruction
of justice, aiding and abetting Social Security fraud and possibly
treason against the United States of America. If this is not an
emergency, what is, if there is no public interest in knowing, whether
we have a criminal in the White House, when is there a public
interest? Can there be a more dire emergency? We have a breach of the
national security in the highest office in the land, and our
Department of Justice does not grasp that this is an emergency?
It is hard to believe that we have such an unprecedented stupidity,
therefore we are left to deduct, that we have an unprecedented level
of corruption in all three brunches of our government, which allows
this crime to go on for nearly three years. Specifically because it is
the highest level of emergency, we need Your Honor to address the
evidence and reconsider the motion for summary judgment.
Newly available evidence
Defendant claims, that the Plaintiff fails to identify newly available
evidence. Defendant claims, that the information provided by Taitz was
received by her earlier and was not submitted timely. Clearly the
department of Justice suffers from a case of collective dyslexia or
does not understand simple English.
Taitz painstakingly explained in her motion and affidavit, that after
she submitted her motion for reconsideration, in the end of August of
2011 she did an interview with a talk show host Doug Hagmann. During
the interview Mr. Hagmann alerted her, that Mr. Obama has left
evidence of his full unredacted Social Security number in his tax
returns which he posted on WhiteHouse.gov. Taitz has written to her
supporters and got responses, that Mr. Obama posted a file on
whitehouse.gov, which was not flattened and contained his full social
security number. Only recently Taitz received an affidavit from Mr.
Papa, attesting to this information, as well as affidavit from Linda
Jordan. None of this information was available to Plaintiff before,
there were no latches and she had no reason to believe that this
information could be available. Information of Barack Obama's use of
Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425 in his tax returns, is
a newly discovered evidence for the Plaintiff, which was not available
to her before.
Affidavit of Linda Jordan, showing that Connecticut SSN number
042-68-4425 did not match Barack Obama's name according to e-verify,
is a newly acquired evidence, provided only a few days ago.
The evidence, that Barack Obama's uncle, who is an illegal alien, has
a Social Security number, allocated to a citizen or legal alien and
valid for employment, is a new evidence, as it was reported only on
August 30, 2011 that Barack Obama's uncle was arrested and his
employer stated that he checked his Social Security number for
employment. At the same time licensed investigator Susan Daniels ran
the Social Security number for Zeutuni Obama, Barack Obama's aunt, and
found that she had an Indiana Social Security number, even though
she was never a resident of Indiana. This was a new information,
which showed a clear pattern of the Social security fraud in Obama's
family, which weighed in favor of releasing SS-5 for Connecticut SSN
042-68-4425, currently being used by Obama. Taitz had no knowledge of
this information before, did not expect such wide spread lawlessness
and corruption and could not submit this information before.
MOTION PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT THAT THIS COURT MISUNDERSTOOD
THE EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED
In its order this court erroneously stated, that individuals can check
only their own selective service registration. This was a clear error
of fact. In the motion for reconsideration Taitz provided printouts
from the selective service official web site and her affidavit,
clarifying to the court, that SSS.gov allows any individual to check
the selective service registration by simply entering the name, date
of birth and social security number. She clarified to the court, that
use of selective service certificate for verification of use of a
certain social security number is legitimate.
DISCLOSURE OF SS-5 PROVIDES AN INSIGHT TO SSA'S OPERATIONS OR
ACTIVITIES
Defendant claims, that required disclosure under SS-5 would not
provide an insight to SSA's operations and activities.
In response to analytically challenged defendant, plaintiff provides
an explanation yet again. Taitz provided evidence, that a person
occupying the position of the President of the United States and
Commander in Chief, is doing so by using a Social Security number from
a state, where he never resided, which is invalid according to e-
verify and SSNVS. She also provided evidence, that at least two of his
relatives were involved in Social Security fraud as well, which shows
a pattern of Social Security fraud in Obama family. In prior pleadings
she provided evidence, that his close friend and associate and fellow
board member from 'Annenberg Challenge", Domestic terrorist Bill
Ayers, admitted in his memoirs Fugitive Days to manufacturing over a
100 fraudulent Social Security IDs within one year out of 11 years,
that he was underground. Taitz also provided this court in prior
pleadings, that according to most reputable National databases Obama's
name is linked to multiple Social Security numbers, one of which
belongs to the deceased mother of the former actuary of the Social
Security Administration Mr. Harry Balantyne. Based on all of the above
required document will help shed light on what is going on in the
Social Security Administration, how all this fraud is possible and
what can be done to abate it. Today we are facing a de facto
bankruptcy of the Social Security fund , whereby our total debt of
around 14 trillion dwarfs in comparison to estimated 45-60 trillion of
unfunded Social Security obligations. Not only US citizens have a
legitimate interest in understanding, what is going on within the SSA,
but they have a need for meaningful management of the SSA and purging
of the fraudulently obtained SSA ID's which can be used for draining
the fund of its' assets. Today, with so many blue states
demonstrating a very loose approach to voter registration and HAVA
compliance, there is no doubt all of these Gogol's "Dead Souls" of SSA
are voting and no doubt voting for Obama. If we are to have any
resemblance to a clean election in 2012, this issue needs to be
addressed and it needs to be addressed very soon. There is a
tremendous interest to this case and this issue. One article in
salon.com "GOP senior staffers huddle with birther leader Orly Taitz"
by Justin Elliott was ranked #5 in Google news on September 26th. This
means that millions and millions of people read this article and
downloaded it. These U.S. citizens are extremely angry about this
total dereliction of duties and corruption within the SSA and the
Department of Justice. They are wondering, why should they continue
working 4-6 month of every year to pay their taxes and SSA
obligations, only to get arrogant non-response and persecution, when
they legitimately request redress of grievances in regards to the
fund. Not only this court should grant the Plaintiff's motion and
release the requested SS-5, but this court should appoint a special
master or special prosecutor to investigate massive SSA fraud, which
was uncovered by the Plaintiff, not only fraud committed by Obama, but
also fraud committed by many others, which was not addressed and not
prosecuted as of yet. If this court is serious about upholding the law
and the Constitution and providing expedient and in-depth address to
the issues raised, this court should consider appointing the Plaintiff
herein as a special master in order to investigate not only the fraud
by Obama, but also massive SSA fraud in general and massive elections
fraud, which is related to the SSA fraud.
CLAIMS OF UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS
Defendant claims that Obama's Social Security number was accessed via
unauthorized means.
Again, Taitz explained that Mr. Obama posted his tax returns on line
on World wide web on one of the most widely trafficked sites.
WhiteHouse.gov. He did not flatten the pdf file, so any person
anywhere in the world, who cared to buy a widely available computer
program "Adobe Illustrator", could see the whole file and could see
Mr. Obama's unredacted full tax return. Nobody did anything illegal or
unauthorized in downloading the file, that Mr. Obama himself posted.
There was no need for any authorization: the file was right there, in
front of anybody, who downloaded it and saw layers and layers of
documents and the full Social Security number for both Barack and
Michelle Obama and their signatures underneath. There was no need to
enter any password, there was no warning, that only authorized
personal can read those files. The files were posted on WhiteHouse.com
for the whole world to see and those files had a full social security
number for Barack Obama. Mr. Obama either made a mistake or did it on
purpose to taunt the whole nation, to "toy" with the whole nation,
using Your Honor's lexicon, to tell us: "I can commit any crime, I can
commit Social Security fraud, elections fraud, selective service
fraud, IRS fraud by using a Social Security number, which was never
assigned to me, and all of your officials in the Social Security
administration, all of your attorneys of the US attorneys' office, all
of your congressmen and all of your judges are so corrupt, that they
will simply look the other way, persecute the dissidents and attorneys
-whistle-blowers and nothing will be done to me" . That is what this
man saying and so far it is working for him.
For example, Obama in one of his speeches stated that he travelled to
all 57 states. Was it an unauthorized access, was it illegal for
members of the public to record his speech? Was it illegal for our
members of the media to comment on it and state that this mistake
might be an evidence of the fact, that in his mind he is thinking of
57 Muslim states as states where he has affinity and allegiance and
not 50 U.S. states, which he is destroying with his policies? Yes,
when Obama stated that he travelled to all 57 states, he probably
misspoke, it was a Freudian slip, he did not intend to actually state,
what was on his mind, but he did. It cannot be taken back and it is
evidence of his frame of mind.
Similarly, when Obama posted his tax returns on line, did not flatten
the file and left his full unredacted Social Security number available
to the public, he might have not intended to show it, but he did, it
cannot be taken back and it is a legitimately obtained evidence of the
Social Security fraud, as the document contained Obama's signature and
the number 042-68-4425 starting with 042 number sequence from the
state of CT, where he never resided.
Criminals make mistakes; that is how they are being caught on a daily
basis by police, by the FBI and other agencies. Sometimes criminals
leave behind their finger prints, their shoe imprints and their
messages on recording machines. Obama left behind evidence of fraud by
posting a fraudulently obtained Social Security number in his tax
returns. If our authorities, including the defendant Michael Astrue,
commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and the Department
of Justice were to do their job, and not engage in obstruction of
Justice, this matter would have been discovered and criminally
prosecuted years ago.
How is this different from the Watergate, United States v. Nixon, 418
U.S. 683 (1974)? An analogy: if Watergate were to happen today, the
Department of Justice and this court would be claiming that the
Watergate tapes are a private property and Nixon's right to privacy
outweighs the right of the public to know, even though in 1974 the
special prosecutor and the courts decided otherwise. The difference
between Watergate and ObamaFraudGate or ObamaForgeryGate is in one
simple fact: during Watergate our government actually worked, it had a
notion of decency, integrity and need to be true to the oath of office
to protect the Constitution, while today and for the last two and a
half years our government has paralyzed by corruption. Due to the
governmental dereliction of duties ordinary citizens stepped up to the
plate: plaintiff herein attorney Orly Taitz, 200 members of the US
military and 10 state representatives, who signed up as her clients-
plaintiffs, retired Colonel Gregory Hollister, a resident of
Washington state Linda Jordan, retired Senior Deportation Officer John
Sampson, licensed investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels,
retired official Paula Hohn, experts Paul Irey, Douglas Vogt, Felicito
Papa and many others who spent hours investigating, contacting our
corrupt officials and Congressmen to no avail. All of these people
should be thanked by the government for the courage and strength of
character, not attacked. Just as Paul Revere was riding his horse and
screaming at the top of his lungs "the British are coming". These
people are riding the Internet and jumping into the abyss of murky
waters of the U.S. jurisprudence and screaming "a criminal is in the
White House, a person with a stolen Social Security number, with a
forged birth certificate is in the White House". In the case of Paul
Revere we at least knew who was coming and where from. In the case of
Obama we know nothing:
a. his Social Security number is from a state where he never resided,
connected in databases to the date of birth of 1890 and does not match
to his name in E-Verify and SSNVS
b. according to experts Vogt, Irey and Papa his birth certificate is a
computer generated forgery
c since his SSN is not valid, his IRS number and returns are not valid
d since his SSN is not valid, his Selective Service certificate is
not valid
e. the previously submitted Student clearing House record shows him
attending Columbia University only for 9 months and not 2 years as he
claims, which means he is defrauding the nation in relation to his
educational records and his residency between September 1981-September
1982
f. there is a gap of at least a year in the personal history of this
man, whereby nobody knows, where he was and what was he doing, between
September 1981-September 1982
g. due to all of the above, he never proved his identity and Natural
born status while running for the U.S. president, which makes his
election a case of the biggest fraud in the history of this nation.
How in the world can anyone state, that all of the above does not
represent a case of public interest and that Obama's privacy
supersedes the right of the public, the right of 311 million U.S.
citizens to know, whether we have a legitimate president, to know who
is this man?
These claims of privacy are so laughable that it sounds like a good
sitcom material. Sadly enough it is not a laughing matter. Examples of
damage to the US economy and security stemming from Obama's actions
are staggering.
Taitz provided pleadings as an intervener in a case of Hornbeck v
Salazar 2:10-cv-01663 MLCF, where representatives of Oil and Gas
industry in the Gulf of Mexico were suing the Obama administration
over its' moratorium on offshore drilling. After the presiding
federal judge Martin Feldman issued an injunction against the illegal
moratorium, the Obama administration continued killing U.S. jobs by
proceeding with a de facto moratorium via refusal to issue drilling
permits. At the same time Obama travelled to Brazil, where his large
donor and benefactor George Soros is heavily invested in an oil
conglomerate Petrobras, and where Obama congratulated Brazil for their
oil and gas offshore drilling and promised Brazil, that U.S. will be
its' biggest customer. 80,000 American oil and gas industry workers
lost their jobs as a result of these actions by the Obama
administration. Those 80,000 workers have 80,000 spouses, some 200,000
children, all of whom are now becoming impoverished, unable to pay
their mortgages, losing their homes and life savings. There are
thousands of examples like these all over the country in different
industries. Can Your Honor look these people in the eyes and with a
straight face tell them, that they have no right to know, that there
is "no legitimate public interest" in verifying legitimacy of this
person for the position of the U.S. president? Can Your Honor tell
them, that Obama's right to privacy in a fraudulently obtained Social
Security number from a state, where he never resided, which is invalid
per E-Verify, outweighs the right of all of these people to know?
Your Honor, Taitz is not asking you to cut the baby in half. She is
asking you for the most minimal order: to release a redacted
application for the Social Security number 042-68-4425, which would
show the gender, race, date of birth and zip code of the applicant.
This is not too much to ask to release, in light of the fact, that the
full number was already released by Obama, the person, who is
currently using it, and in light of tremendous public interest and
importance for the whole nation.
CONCLUSION
The information provided in the motion for reconsideration represented
new information that is of the most exigent nature, that clearly shows
that Barack Hussein Obama is occupying the position of the U.S.
President and Commander in-Chief using in his tax returns and in his
Selective Service registration a fraudulently obtained Social
Security number 042-68-4425 from a state, where he never resided, and
which does not match e-verify records for this number. This is the
most exigent matter in the history of this nation. It is unthinkable
to believe that we can have such an unprecedented level of corruption
in all three branches of our government, that this court would rule,
that this information is not of exigent nature and that the release of
a redacted SS-5 application for this SSN is not warranted. Interest of
the nation in having a legitimate president with valid identification
records trumps any expectations of privacy of Mr. Obama in using a
Social Security number, which he himself made public by posting it on
WhiteHouse.gov and which was never legally assigned to him.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I. Lila Dubert, certify, that I am over 18 years old, I am not a
party to above action and I served the defendant in the above
captioned action with attached pleadings by first class mail, postage
prepaid trough his attorney
Assistant U.S. attorney Patrick Nemerof
555 4th str. NW
Washington DC, 20530
Signed
Dated 09.27.2011
cc Congressman Darrell Issa
Chairman
House Oversight Committee
2347 Rayburn House Building
Washington DC, 20515
cc Congressman Mike Rogers
Chairman
House Intelligence Committee
133 Cannon House Office building
Washington DC 20515
cc Congressman Sam Johnson
Chairman
House Subcommittee on Social Security
House Ways and Means Committee
2929 N Central Expy, 240
Richardson, TX 75080
cc Congressman Dana Rohrbacher
Chairman
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations'
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
2300 Rayburn House Building
Washington DC 20515
US Commission
on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C
Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Inter -American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C., 20006 U.S.A..
Tel.: 202-458-6002, 202-458-6002. Fax: 202-458-3992.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Regional Office – Americas / Bureau régional – Amériques / Oficina
regional – Américas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 001 (514) 289-8757
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590
Email: admin@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Laura Vericat Figarola
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es
Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª
08029 Barcelona, España
tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24
United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment