49 Responses to “my motion to compel Obama’s subpoena was docketted today in USDC District of Columbia 11-402 Taitz v Astrue Judge Royce Lamberth”

1. DixT
   July 11th, 2011 @ 7:15 am

   Orly, this is a tribute to YOU!

   “These are the times that try men’s souls.
   The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will,
   in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country;
   but he that stands by it now, deserves the
   love and thanks of man and woman.
   Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
   yet we have this consolation with us,
   that the harder the conflict,
   the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

2. Jerry R
   July 11th, 2011 @ 7:53 am

   I wish they would put this in redneck what does this really mean?

3. Leslie Simmons
   July 11th, 2011 @ 3:35 pm

   Sure hope Judge Lamberth doesn’t flake

4. Atticus Finch
   July 11th, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

   “Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF.(rdj”)

   What does this mean?

5. Randall McGlade
   July 11th, 2011 @ 11:14 pm

   Orly,
   You are a star, a Patriot of the U.S.A. You make me feel proud of the immigrants that have traveled to this country with the highest hopes and the greatest honors and intentions. As a disabled veteran, you are the king of people that I wanted to fight to protect. It makes me cry to see the incedible amount of amazing work you have done and continue to do. For some time I have been worried about donating to you and releasing my name for fear of threats and backlash as I have been applying for government jobs in Virginia and D.C. areas. My wife and I both habe thought that since we both work for the federal government we would receive reprisals. I guess we will fing out now. I plan on putting up a basic news aggragate sign in the near future. I will definitely link to your site when I do. I hope that you are getting all the financial support that you need. My personal skills are generally Military combat arms. However, I do have 5 college degrees specializing Homeland Security Management. I am also a former Police Officer. If there is anything that I can do to help this cause, please ask ans I will see if I can help.

   Sincerely,
   Randall McGlade

6. kelley
   July 12th, 2011 @ 4:27 am

   when will the hearing be, I didn’t see it posted.

7. Thayne Doak
   July 12th, 2011 @ 4:43 am

   Dr. Taitz,
   As you are well aware, the Obots on several websites challenging Soetoro aka Obama’s legal right to hold the Office of the President, routinely resort to name calling, character assassination, obfuscation, distractions and flaout prevarications in their mindless defense of the usurper-in-chief. WND has just such an individual, who-by all appearances- is a trained and coached operative for the propaganda arm of the White House. Her name is Cindy (Cynthia) Gough Montgomery, and she is a rather prolific contributer from her Facebook account, to WND’s comment section on all stories relating to what WND calls “Certifigate”. Yesterday, in response to Bob Unruh’s report on the machinations surrounding the “release” of the LFBC from the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health, she committed a Freudian slip in posting this comment:
   “Kyle no mainstream gop candidate will touch this issue–nor will the GOP–it would be the kiss of death for them—”
   This is about as close an admission of guilt that I have ever seen from any White House operative on this issue…and is about as truthful a statement to date on the reluctance of the GOP to take this issue head-on. This is either a sign that cracks are starting to appear in the veneer, or unbelievable hubris and arrogance…I think it is the latter.
   Thayne Doak

8. JOHN GUARNERI
   July 12th, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

   when is the hearing?

9. Veritas
   July 12th, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

   ORYR reporting that another officer sworn to uphold the Constitution is publicly stating:
   ————

   Army Colonel Lawrence Sellin:

   Obama’s ineligibility greatest crisis since the Civil War; It must be dealt with before election

10. Loretta Fuddy
    July 12th, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

    Why are you moving to compel in DC when you are asking for the production of documents in HI? FRCP 45(a)(2)(c) requires that the subpoena be issued from HI so an order compelling production would have to come from an HI district court.

    It seems your motion will get booted on simple procedural grounds.

11. Julie
    July 12th, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

    How certain are you that substituted service is allowed in Hawaii?

12. A Friend
    July 12th, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

    What does this Loretta Fuddy know? She’s clearly an Obot.

    Ignore her, Orly!

13. Thayne Doak
    July 12th, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

    Dr. Taitz,
    I think that you ought to know that the OBOT operative that I just referenced in my earlier post is claiming that you acknowledge that Soetoro aka Obama was born in Hawaii. What say you?
    Thayne Doak

14. Thayne Doak
    July 12th, 2011 @ 10:03 pm

    Cynthia Gaugh Montgomery,
    When did you first start working in the propaganda arm of the Soetoro aka Obama machine? Was it Axelrod or Emanuel that hired you? Or have you been with the administration all along? Doesn’t your medical practice in Shreveport, LA suffer as a result of your obsession with propping up the corrupt and rotten edifice upon which Soetoro aka Obama’s house of cards so precariously rests? So far, I haven’t heard one single intelligent thought issue forth from that overtaxed brain of yours. Yet, I do have a sliver of respect for your superhuman ability to suspend reality-indefinitely- in order to be able to simply get through the day as a loyal OBOT. How do you do it? Drugs? Long walks in the red light district? Tai chi in the park with a bunch of aging pensioners? I suspect that the few lackwits still clinging to the hope that Soetoro aka Obama is a bona fide Commander-in-Chief are simply to vapid and dellusional to be able to discern between reality and the fantasy world that you are ALL natural born citizens of.
    Thayne Doak
    Greeley, CO.

15. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 12th, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

    it’s total nonsense. Not only I never said that, I am working now on the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, filed by the governmet. wait till you see it.
    a hint;”it will not be kind to Obama”

16. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 12th, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

    it is not a substituted service. I got a letter from the Attorney general of HI, stating that the office of the Atty Gen represents the director of Health Fuddy, so i have to go through him, as her attorney.

17. Barbara
    July 13th, 2011 @ 3:54 am

    Does the letter state that the AG agrees to accept service of a subpoena on behalf of Ms. Fuddy? If not, tou don’t have proper service.

18. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 13th, 2011 @ 4:55 am

    the letter states, that he is her attorney. When a party is represented by an attorney, I am not allowed to contact her directly

19. William
    July 13th, 2011 @ 5:35 am

    Randall McGlade,

    Thank you for pointing out Cindy on the WND comment section. After reviewing your comments, I reviewed with direct attention to “Cindy’s” comments on WND. Apparently, she is an incompetent idiot.

    As on commenter on WND correctly addressed, there have been 8 recent attempts to change the definition for qualifications of Article II “NBC citizen” requirement in an attempt to reduce it to “Citizen” of U.S., same as the citizenship qualifications of a Senator or House Rep. However, and incorrectly answered by “Cindy”, she claims they were “Bi-partisan Bill”?

    First and foremost, 7 of the 8 were nothing more than “Proposals” for consideration in the houses – nothing more – and none seceded remotely close to garnishing to 2/3 of both houses approval. Even had they accepted with 2/3 vote in both houses, the final vote would have had to have been (according to Article 5) 3/4 in both houses to ratify for Amendment of the Constitutional requirement. None made it past a simple proposal.

    Secondly, Mrs. Cindy’s pathetic attempt to distort the facts of such proposals is limited by lack of reviewing the proposals themselves. They were not Bi-Partisan; rather she [Mrs. Cindy] enjoins the notion that 2 Republicans also attempted such ratification of the Constitutional Amendment proposal without citing what they were attempting in the first place.

    For example: Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat ONSLAUGHT aimed at REMOVING the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Both Houses understood this, and thus rejected it.

    Moreover, 2 of these proposals were sought at the Senate level attached as “Riders in a separate Bill”, in an attempt to redefine NBC Article II Presidential eligibility (When all else fails, attempt a rider in their minds), but that was caught and failed. Yet beyond their failed attempts, the Democrats actually thought they could attach a hidden bill to override the Constitution without actually amending it.

    Lastly, and without due knowledge, Mrs. Cindy Acknowledges that Obama/Soetoro is not eligible for the Office of President by recognizing the Article II clause as been attempted to be changed from NBC – to – Citizen of the U.S., which failed. Therefore, how can she conclude that he is now eligible? She cannot.

20. Connie Lingus
    July 13th, 2011 @ 5:36 am

    Sounds like Loretta Fuddy got her law degree online.

21. A Friend
    July 13th, 2011 @ 7:18 am

    I look forward to your opposition to the US’s motion. Can you post it here? What do you plan to say in it? Are you going to explain why Obama using a phony social security number and selective service number make him ineligible/disqualified?

    Please let us know as soon as you know. Lots o my friends are worried about the US’s motion but I have told them not to worry.

    I also hope it is full of your informative exhibits.

22. Randall McGlade
    July 13th, 2011 @ 11:12 am

    I am glad to be of service.

23. Stephen
    July 13th, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

    William,

    With regards to the definition of an Article 2 Section 1 ‘Natural Born Citizen’ consider my logical argument as follows:

    Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution reads: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents for the same obvious reason. The only distinguishable difference between the “citizens at the time” and a “natural born citizen” is the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first ‘Natural Born Citizen’ born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens to produce a candidate free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ could be available for candidacy. At the time of the adoption there were only two groups of charter citizens available for the candidate pool…native born citizens (born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents) and naturalized citizens (those born abroad). If either of these groups were eligible to hold office as President then there would be no reason for the adoption clause nor would there be a need to distinguish ‘Natural Born Citizens’. And to those who would suggest that the adoption clause was because the ‘soil’ was British before the adoption and that it was strictly a matter of jus soli, the article would read ‘no person except a native born citizen’ instead of ‘no person except a natural born citizen’ as it was well understood and a part of the language of the day to regard a person born on the soil a native born citizen.

    Obama’s forged long form birth certificate (just released and publicly owned by Obama) is relevant only in that it reiterates that Barack Obama Sr. was his father as Obama claims in his book and on his website. Barack Obama Sr. (if indeed he was Barry’s father) was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth nor did he ever naturalize during his lifetime. If Obama is telling the truth about who his father is then he was born a British citizen by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as he openly admits on his website. Obama says he is a ‘Native Born Citizen’ with dual citizenship at birth. As pointed out above this means he is ineligible to hold office and is subject to arrest for federal election fraud.

    President Chester Arthur faced a challenge by those who believed his father was not a citizen when Chester was born. Before the authorities could seize them Arthur took all his family documents and burned them in his back yard effectively covering up the fact of his ineligibility to hold office. It was only recently in 2009 that a researcher found documentation which confirmed that Arthur’s critics were right about his ineligibility because his father was not a citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.

    So, even if Obama was born on the White House steps he is not nor can ever be eligible to hold office as President of the United States of America

24. steward degraw
    July 13th, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

    THIS GUY ” OBUMMA ” SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

    HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR FRAUD AND TYRANNY !!

25. tan
    July 14th, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

    “Are you going to explain why Obama using a phony social security number and selective service number make him ineligible/disqualified?”

    Because obviously an illegal alien would do that or a crook. He has violated tons of federal laws to get his senator seat and the presidency.

26. Ro
    July 15th, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

    I too have read Cindy’s comments on WND. She is an obot for sure. Wnd should ban her.

27. pi314
    July 16th, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

    “Sounds like Loretta Fuddy got her law degree online.”

    Oh Connie, pSHAW!!! WHO would get a law degree online?!?!?!

28. jcm52
    July 16th, 2011 @ 11:40 pm

    stephen, stephen, stephen:

    “The only distinguishable difference between the `citizens at the time’ and a `natural born citizen’ is the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth.”

    The people who became citizens at the adoption of the Constitution were not born citizens of a country that didn’t exist when they were born. That’s the distinction. Natural born citizens are born citizens. Citizens at time of adoption became citizens at time of adoption (so in fact it allowed people who came to the US after it gained independence and before the Constitution was ratified to be president).

29. jcm52
    July 16th, 2011 @ 11:42 pm

    that was very cunningly done, connie.

30. questions
    July 17th, 2011 @ 4:59 am

    Just the fact that our government is attempting to change the requirement for NBC speaks volumes. Even if it did (and I don’t believe We The People would let it happen), it wasn’t in law when this last person sneaked his way in.

    Maybe Fuddy sent off for a fake law certificate.

31. Dude
    July 17th, 2011 @ 5:49 am

    The subpoena was directed to the AG of Hawaii- I’m at a loss as to why it would matter whoever he delegated the authority to has fled. The AG is the one that has to concern himself with satisfying it- or not. He can direct someone else to comply. Just more smoke and mirrors.

32. Stephen
    July 17th, 2011 @ 9:26 am

    Jcm52,

    “The people who became citizens at the adoption of the Constitution were not born citizens of a country that didn’t exist when they were born. That’s the distinction. Natural born citizens are born citizens. Citizens at time of adoption became citizens at time of adoption (so in fact it allowed people who came to the US after it gained independence and before the Constitution was ratified to be president).”

    Before the adoption there were no citizens. After the adoption there were those persons loyal to the new country and became charter citizens at that time. Their parents had not taken such an oath before they gave birth to the present generation. Therefore no citizen after the adoption was born to citizen parents for the next generation. That is why the adoption clause was put in Article 2 Section 1.

33. Don in Tennessee
    July 17th, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

    Just the fact that our government is attempting to change the requirement for NBC speaks volumes. Even if it did (and I don’t believe We The People would let it happen), it wasn’t in law when this last person sneaked his way in.

    A law does not over ride the Constitutional requirement. It would require a Constitutional Amendment!!

34. jcm52
    July 18th, 2011 @ 12:11 am

    stephy:

    “Before the adoption there were no citizens.”

    And therefore no-one who was born before the adoption was a citizen at birth. That’s the most obvious distinction between those born before and after the adoption.

35. Stephen
    July 18th, 2011 @ 6:56 am

    Jcm52,

    After the adoption there were citizens who were born on the soil which was newly recognized as America but not to citizen parents. No one was born to citizen parents until a generation will have passed. The soil did not change. They were not citizens at birth even though they were ‘native born’. They became citizens at the adoption. The only logical distinction between the ‘citizens at the time’ and a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ can only logically be understood to mean they had citizen parents at the time of birth. If it was merely a citizen born on the soil from the time of the adoption they could have simply said ’35 years from now’ but the language is specific to one’s born status and the only thing it can point to is the citizen parent aspect because all other aspects (jus soli) already applied. Think about it…if a person ‘native born’ and at the age of 35 and also a citizen at the time of the adoption was eligible and ‘considered’ article 2 section 1 ‘natural born citizen’ then there is no logical need for the adoption clause. Jus soli is not sufficient to meet article 2 section 1.

36. Julie
    July 19th, 2011 @ 6:14 am

    You need to support the following assertion (a statement of law) with a citation:

    “The type of safeguard, that is envisioned in the exemption 6 of FOIA does not exist in case at hand. This exception exists in relation to average citizens, whose name is not known and whose identity might be stolen by someone usng a name and a social security number of a private citizen.”

    You cited no cases discussing Exemption 6.

37. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 19th, 2011 @ 6:16 am

    this is a case of first impression in sense, that we never had a President using a stolen SSN

38. jcm52
    July 19th, 2011 @ 9:52 am

    stephy:

    A farmer had two sons, one (Jeff) 18 and one (Johnny) 12. One day little Johnny came running in to the house and said: “Jeff and the neighbor girl are in the barn. He’s got his pants down and she’s got her dress pulled up, and they’re about to pee all over the hay!”

    You’re suffering the same problem. You’ve got (most of) your facts right, but you’ve come to the wrong conclusion. “The only logical distinction between the ‘citizens at the time’ and a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ can only logically be understood to mean they had citizen parents at the time of birth.” No. Another possible distinction is that the citizens at the time of adoption were not natural born because they were not awarded citizenship at birth. So the rule is anyone natural born. Except of course anyone born before adoption wasn’t natural born – not because of their parents but because, quite obviously, there was no country to be a citizen of at birth.

    Your rule would have disqualified many of our previous presidents.

39. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 19th, 2011 @ 10:42 am

    that’s the biggest BS I ever heard

40. Coastal Eddie
    July 20th, 2011 @ 9:22 am

    Dear Lady Liberty,

    Some of these folks are Obots just trying to waste your time.

41. Stephen
    July 20th, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

    Jcm52,

    Natural Born = Jus Soli + Citizen Parents (plural)
    Native Born = Jus Soli
    Naturalized =

    Nothing changed about the soil at the adoption. Native born remains the same.

    Chester Arthur is the only one it would disqualify. Why do you think he hurriedly burned all his family documents before the authorities could get there?

    Given your logic the adoption clause would have been limited to 35 years time. But that is not how it reads.

    The founders were very familiar with Vattel’s ‘Law Of Nations’ and its very clear definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen. You insult their intelligence with your ridiculous explanation and you also insult mine as well.

    Ignoring the facts, logic, and the actual language of Article 2 Section 1 means you can just let your imagination go wild and come up with whatever suits your agenda.

42. Todd from Wasilla
    July 20th, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

    The Mrs. and I think you are the tops, Orly. You go gettum girl, you betcha. We can’t publicly support you for obvious reasons.

43. S.H.
    July 22nd, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

    Orly such a trooper you are…thank you ever so much for your love of freedom, this country, its people and the US Constitution…May God Bless you forever!!! Standing behind you 100 percent..praying for you and your family…

44. Connie Lingus
    July 23rd, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

    Yes Orly, lots of the guys here would like to be behind you!

45. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    July 23rd, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

    JERK

46. john
    July 24th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

    Although Connie’s statment was crude, you are crazy hot, Orly.

47. Mike Hunt
    July 27th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

    Todd? from Wasilla?

48. UK True Religion
    April 9th, 2012 @ 10:52 am

    It’s the ideal time to make some ideas to the potential and it is time for you to be joyful. I have examine this post and if I could I want to counsel you some appealing factors or solutions. Most likely you could be able to write next articles or blog posts referring to this text. I desire to go through extra important things about it!

49. Forte Village Resort
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

    Классная статья – спасибо!

Leave a Reply