I am working on this motion in Indiana. the word angry does not begin to describe my feelings about what is being done by judges
Posted on | September 28, 2012 | 12 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603
Pro se plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ ) Case No.: 49D14-1203-MI-012046
KARL SWIHART ) EDWARD KESLER )
BOB KERN )
Frank Weyl )
valeria ripley )
ELECTIONS COMMISSION; )
SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIANA; )
Deputy Attorney )
General Jefferson Garn;
General Kate Shelby;
amos brown, in his capacity of
the talk show host of the 1310 Radio/Wtlc
Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is brought in conjunction with the Motion To Augment record.
1. The case at hand represents the most important matter of National security. I represents a complaint relating to use of forged and fraudulently obtained IDs by Barack Hussein Obama, who is currently running for the U.S. President.
2. Plaintiffs recently filed a Motion for Preliminary injunction. In the motion Plaintiffs wrote in large letters ” PLAINTIFFS INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THEIR SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AS IF FULLY PLED HEREIN.”
3. Second Amended Complaint contained 70 pages of sworn affidavits and other exhibits evidencing forgery and fraud in Obama’s Social Security card, Selective Service certificate and birth certificate, as well as evidence of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship and his use of a name not legally his. Second amended Complaint and all the Exhibits were attached to the Motion for Preliminary injunction (Exhibit 1)
4. Orly Taitz, who is both a plaintiff and an attorney in this case, working pro bono, for the second time brought witnesses to testify to authenticity of affidavits.
5. During the oral argument hearing Taitz requested Judge Reid to allow her to put on the stand witness Chris Strunk to authenticate his affidavit, so it can be properly become part of the evidence and of the record. Taitz explained both in her pleadings and during the oral argument that Strunk filed a freedom of information request with the State Department. In response to his request he received from the State department copies of passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. In his mother’s passport records Obama is listed under a different last name “Soebarkah”. Obama is listed as his middle name. His full name is listed as “Barack Obama Soebarkah”. Taitz argued that if the court were to disregard all the other exhibits, all the other evidence, this one piece of evidence is sufficient to remove Obama from the ballot, as “Barack Obama” is not his legal name. Defense did not object to the testimony of Strunk. Judge Reid simply refused to allow Strunk to testify. Taitz pleaded with Judge Reid, advising her that this is the second time judge Reid is refusing to allow witnesses to testify. During the first hearing in this case former secretary of State of Indiana, Charlie White, was subpoenaed and was in the court room, but was not allowed to testify. Taitz properly made the request during the time allotted to her. Taitz advised Judge Reid that Mr. Strunk came all the way from New York for the second time. Judge Reid refused to allow Strunk to testify and did not provide any explanation and any reason, as to why she is refusing to allow him to testify. Not only Judge Reid did not allow Strunk to testify, she addressed the Plaintiffs and some 50 supporters, who gathered in the courtroom telling them that the attorneys did not provide any evidence, which could potentially create a rift and an ill will between the plaintiffs and attorneys.
6. Taitz, who is both a plaintiff and an attorney in this case is gravely concerned that if the court did not allow witnesses to testify twice, the court will not allow witnesses to testify in the future as well and the plaintiffs are deprived of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights. Taitz hopes that this was not done with malice, but due to oversight. Taitz believes that the court might have overlooked or forgot that the Second Amended Complaint with some 70 pages of exhibits was included by reference in the Motion for Preliminary injunction. The court might have forgotten that affidavit of Chris Strunk was a part of exhibits.
6. At hearing on temporary injunction all plaintiffs need do is show prima facie right to injunction, and is not required to make out such a case as would entitle him in all events to relief at hearing on merits. Everett v Ward, 267 N.E.2d 174 (Indiana 1971).
7. Plaintiffs in this case have shown that they are entitled to a right for Preliminary injunction. With their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and exhibits, which were incorporated by reference, their Reply to opposition (Exhibit 2) and oral argument Plaintiffs have provided a prima facie evidence that candidate Obama cannot be on the ballot due to his foreign citizenship, name not legally his and evidence of fraud and forgery in his identification papers. Defense did not provide any evidence in rebuttal, to show that any of Obama’s IDs are genuine, that his legal last name is really Obama and that after he was an Indonesian citizen, as evidenced by his school records from Jakarta, Indonesia, he changed his citizenship from Indonesian to American.
8. As the witness testimony was not allowed during the Motion Hearing, Plaintiffs attach herein an original Certified Transcript from the Administrative court in the state of Georgia, which is provided in a sealed envelope, as it was received directly from the court reporter, as well as the video taped testimony from the same trial,
Farrar et al v Obama OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- 1215136-60-MALIHI, where seven experts testified to fraud and forgery in Obama’s records, among them witness Chris Strunk.
while Defense might argue that the certified trial transcript and videotaped sworn testimony from the same trial is not sufficient for a permanent injunction, this is sufficient for a preliminary injunction removing Mr. Obama from the ballot pending verification of the original Identification papers.
9. Rule 1002. Requirement of Original
To 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 statute. An electronic record of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles obtained from the Bureau that bears an electronic or digital signature, as defined by statute, is admissible in a court proceeding as if the signature were an original.
Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) 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.
According to Indiana Rules of Evidence 1002 and 1003 one needs an original document to prove the content of a writing. If a genuine question is raised to the authenticity of the original, a duplicate is not allowed. Plaintiffs raised a genuine question of authenticity of Obama’s IDs.
a. Plaintiffs provided a sworn affidavit of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio attesting to the fact that as a result of his investigation Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service Certificate and Social Security card represent computer generated forgeries. (FAC affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio)
b. Affidavit of typesetting expert Paul Irey attesting to forgery in Obama’s birth certificate (FAC affidavit of Paul Irey)
c. Affidavit of scanning and copying machines expert, Douglas Vogt attesting to forgery in Obama’s birth certificate (FAC affidavit of Douglas Vogt)
d. Affidavit of Tim Adams, assistant clerk for the City of Honolulu and Honolulu county attesting to the fact that there is no birth record for Obama in any hospital in Hawaii. (FAC affidavit of Tim Adams)
10. Plaintiffs move to include into evidence exhibits to the First Amended Complaint, Original Certified Transcript and the video tape of the testimony trial Farrar v Obama OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- 1215136-60-MALIHI
11. Plaintiffs request an expedited decision on their Motion for Preliminary injunction. If the court refuses to grant the Preliminary Injunction based on provided evidence, Plaintiffs are requesting the court to accept this pleading as a notice of an interlocutory appeal for an emergency relief.