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

My response to John Dummitt to his e-mail “great news” after the 9th circuit dismissed the case I filed on behlf of alan Keyes, 10 state Reps and 30 high ranked US army officers

Posted on | December 22, 2011 | 13 Comments

From: John A.
Date: 12/22/2011 2:13:04 PM
To: Florence (redacted)
Subject: Great News
 
Hello Florence
 
 This is regarding the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling today. I have Standing by Precedence now. Now it is more important than ever to get on any ballot. 
    
The Ninth no longer agrees with me in dicta. Now they agree with me by Precedence. The court said if Drake and Keyes would have filed their case before Obama was elected they would have had standing. Since they filed after Obama was elected they were no longer candidates. Since I am still a candidate I have standing. This means I will get my day in
court.
 
Please spread the word around that we finally got a favorable ruling. Orly will fail because she is representing Democrats. Since the party always nominates the incumbent no Democrat can show harm.
 
Orly is going to have to find someone other than a Democrat if she wants to get into court. The court also said no other party, not the military serving or retired, relatives or general citizens can or will have standing. So anyone other than a genuine candidate for President will NOT get Standing and I guess you know I am the only Presidential candidate who has openly said he is going after the eligibility issue.
 
Cheers
John
 

 

Response from attorney Orly Taitz

Florence,

I wish Mr. Dummitt all the best, but he really does not understand, what is going on

1. I represent candidates from different parties: Thomas Macleranis a registered Republican and a Republican presidential candidate, Laurie Roth is a candidate from American Independent Party, Leah Lax and Cody Robert Judy are Democrats. Additionally, in 2008 I filed law suits on behalf of Presidential candidate Alan Kyes and on behalf of Gail Lightfoot,  vice-presidential candidate for official write in candidate Ron Paul. They actually faced Obama in the the general election. Those cases were filed in the state court in CA before the inauguration and were dismissed as well. So, before the inauguration the cases were dismissed because it was too early, after the inauguration the cases were dismissed because it was too late. It is clear, that we have a corrupt regime, where the elections are predetermined, antiamerican globalist puppett-usurper was placed in power as he is the most convenient and the courts are used for excuses. Before the election the excuse is too early, after the election the excuse is too late. 

2. You need to show standing, when you file your case. Mr. Dummitt’s  case is filed during primary. In the primary Democrats compete against Democrats, not Republicans. Until the general election the only people who are competing against Obama are Democrats. The court will probably dismiss  the cases, which are brought by non-democrats, as plaintiffs cannot show actual injury, only hypothetical injury. Only after the primary is over, during the general election, nominees of other parties will have standing to sue Obama. The only people who have any chance of being a nominee in the Republican party, are people in the top tier: Romney, Gingrich, Paul. 

I wish Mr. Dummitt all the best, but he has no real chance of being a Republican nominee. That is why I see no chance for him to gain any standing and succeed, even though I wish him all the best.

Based on a recent decision of the 9th Circuit, you can see that a class action law suit on behalf of citizens cannot succeed also, as they feel that the citizens do not have standing. Lastly, I am concerned, that law suits based only on Minor v Happersett do not have enough strength  and will be dismissed, as Minor says, that one born in the country to citizen parents   is a Natural born citizen, however it says that some courts included other groups as well. There are doubts about other groups. If any judge decides to include children born in the US to one citizen parent  in this group, than he will automatically dismiss all the cases brought on behalf of Liberty legal foundation, as Minor v Happersett is the only basis for their law suit.    This is the reason, why in my cases filed now during the primary, I have Democrats-Presidential candidates  as plaintiffs and I use not only Minor v Happerett, but also the evidence, showing that Obama does not have a valid BC and does not have a valid SSN and the name he is using is different from the name listed in his documents.

I will be including these and other arguments in a motion for rehearing en banc before the 9th circuit.

Also, I got an e-mail from Dean Haskins, where he is not happy with the fact that I served 2 subpoenas: one for Obama’s BC, the other for the BC of Virginia Sunahara. Why I included this subpoena? Rule 338-18 has a provision, 338-18(9) whereby by court order a long form BC can be released. Virginia Sunahara is deceased, so there are no considerations of privacy. I wrote about her for over a year and submitted to several courts information, that Obama’s friend William Ayers admitted to going to cemeteries and getting names of deceased infants and getting social Security numbers based on their birth certificates. In my pleadings I argued, that we need to find a source of Obama’s forged BC. The source could be a bc of a baby born the same day and deceased the next day. In June of this year I submitted a request to see her long form BC.   As long as I have a subpoena signed by a judge, I have  an order from a court of competent jurisdiction and can get access to both birth certificates. As I have a case scheduled for trial for January 26, I have to use such a window of opportunity. We do not know, what will happen tomorrow. W e have to use all the tools we have in our arsenal, while we still have those tools. There are other reasons, I can’t go into all the reasons and all the details at the moment, but I hope I explained enough for people to understand, that I am using all the tools and doing everything humanly possible. Things are never what they seem. I can’t go into more details.

 §338-18  Disclosure of records.  (a)  To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

     (b)  The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.  The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

     (1)  The registrant;

     (2)  The spouse of the registrant;

     (3)  A parent of the registrant;

     (4)  A descendant of the registrant;

     (5)  A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

     (6)  A legal guardian of the registrant;

     (7)  A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

     (8)  A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

     (9)  A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

    (10)  Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

    (11)  A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

    (12)  A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

    (13)  A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

     (c)  The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

     (d)  Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

     (e)  The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

     (f)  Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies.  Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

     (g)  The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

     (1)  A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

     (2)  A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

     (3)  A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

     (4)  A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

     (5)  An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

Cross References

  Rulemaking, see chapter 91.

 

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orlytaitzesq.com
drtaitz.com
taitzofficesuites.com

From:“fgstone@charter.net” <fgstone@charter.net>
To:Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ <dr_taitz@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:59 PM
Subject:Info on STANDING from John Dummett

——-Original Message——-
 
From: John A.
Date: 12/22/2011 2:13:04 PM
Subject: Great News
 
Hello Florence
 
 This is regarding the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling today. I have Standing by Precedence now. Now it is more important than ever to get on any ballot. 
    
The Ninth no longer agrees with me in dicta. Now they agree with me by Precedence. The court said if Drake and Keyes would have filed their case before Obama was elected they would have had standing. Since they filed after Obama was elected they were no longer candidates. Since I am still a candidate I have standing. This means I will get my day in
court.
 
Please spread the word around that we finally got a favorable ruling. Orly will fail because she is representing Democrats. Since the party always nominates the incumbent no Democrat can show harm.
 
Orly is going to have to find someone other than a Democrat if she wants to get into court. The court also said no other party, not the military serving or retired, relatives or general citizens can or will have standing. So anyone other than a genuine candidate for President will NOT get Standing and I guess you know I am the only Presidential candidate who has openly said he is going after the eligibility issue.
 
Cheers
John
 
   
Category: Uncategorized

Comments

13 Responses to “My response to John Dummitt to his e-mail “great news” after the 9th circuit dismissed the case I filed on behlf of alan Keyes, 10 state Reps and 30 high ranked US army officers”

  1. Frank
    December 22nd, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

    I thought the oath by O was botched and it was done later in secret. What evidence is there as to the exact time the oath was taken? Perhaps there is still standing if the delay in taking the oath took place after the suit was filed.

  2. orly taitz
    December 22nd, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

    that is one of my arguments, I just mentioned it in the Rense show

  3. Patty
    December 22nd, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

    What about the written oath that he signed on January 20, 2009. Is there a time-stamp on that?

    You should do a FOIA request.

  4. Ann
    December 22nd, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

    In actuality we have no proof he ever re-took the Oath. We saw a picture of him with his hand on a Bible? Are we supposed to take this as “proof”?? I still say he never re-took it and is playing a role. We actually have no pResident as far as I’m concerned.

  5. john
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 6:25 am

    (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    Orly,

    If you read this closely, you will see the HRS 338-18 has been compromised by Obama and sanctioned by the State of Hawaii. HRS 338-18 is moot. You do not need a direct and tangible interest in the record.

  6. orly taitz
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 7:25 am

    he can makre copies of what he allegedly got from them

  7. MichaelN
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

    Orly.
    Don’t give up on Minor v Happersett so easily.

    The court held that Minor was a US ‘natural born Citizen’ by being born in US, to US citizen parents.

    There was ‘no doubt’ as to Minor’s NBC status.

    But there were doubts as to ‘citizen'(NOT NBC status) status of children of aliens.

    ‘SOME authorities’ does not necessarily mean judges, (it doesn’t cite any dicta or holdings by any judges)it could mean & more likely is a reference to public opinion, immigration officials, legal scholars, government officials, etc. (not that this really matters) these ‘authorities’ say that a child born in US to alien parents may be a ‘citizen’ (it doesn’t say they may be ‘natural born’)as to this “class” (i.e. those who may be ‘citizen’ with alien parents and NOT those in the class of NBC) there are doubts as to whether they are just plain ‘citizens’ (nothing to do with the NBC class of citizen).
    In other words there is NO DOUBT that a child born in US to US citizen parents is a NBC.
    But there are doubts as to whether a child born in US to alien parents is even a ‘citizen’.

  8. orly taitz
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

    that is not what the case says. It says that ones born in the country to citizen parents, are natural born citizens. There were doubts about other classes, but never this one. The case does not say that there were doubts in regards to others, whether they are even citizens. It talks about natural born citizens and says that there were doubts about others, meaning doubts, whether they are natural born. the judge might resolve those doubts in Obama’s favor
    Anyways, I included Minor in all of my pleadings, but it is not the only thing, that I am relying on. We’ll see, what the judge says, but I don’t rely on this one case alone, as the judge might decide, that one born in the country to one citizen parent is also a natural born citizen. that will dismiss Van Irion’s case, but not mine.

  9. Paul Jackson
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

    The court never held that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. Her citizenship was never in doubt. It was never questioned. It was a fact of the case.

    Minor is a voters rights case, nothing more. The issue was whether citizenship gave Ms. Minor the right to vote. The Court ruled that according to MO law women could not vote. Therefore citizenship did not grant her the right to vote.

    The court declined to opine further on what those doubts were they spoke of. They didn’t even say who had doubts and certainly did not say they did.

    They never ruled on anyone’s citizenship in Minor, period.

    The Constitution and the law state that all persons born on the soil and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they are born. It says nothing about their parents’ citizenship.

    There are only two types of citizens, those born and those naturalized. A person born of the soil is a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of their parents.

    There is no SCOTUS decision that says otherwise, the Constitution does not say otherwise and history never said anything different. It was that way in the Colonies prior to the Declaration, between the Declaration and the signing of the Constitution, and continues to this day.

    Anyone citing Minor to SCOTUS as precedent for some two citizen parent theory will be laughed out of court.

  10. URL
    December 24th, 2011 @ 6:49 am

    … [Trackback]…

    […] Informations on that Topic: orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29493 […]…

  11. Blabby
    December 24th, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

    Bravo to Paul Jackson. Birthers would all fail logic classes when they infer what isn’t there in MINOR. He is right — the term NATURAL born citizen is intended to differentiate from NATURAL – IZED. You are one or the other. Only after other hoops were successfully jumped through to the frustration of birthers was this silly interpretation brought up.

  12. SCOTUS dicta defining natural born citizen. - Page 32 - Political Forum
    December 26th, 2011 @ 7:24 am

    […] law, or case precident works. Nor are you able to read apparently. Even Orly Taitz has started calling bullsh*t on Birther claims regarding Minor v. Happersett. […]

  13. Luxurious cars
    December 30th, 2011 @ 4:24 am

    … [Trackback]…

    […] Read More here: orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29493 […]…

Leave a Reply