final submitted in DC
Posted on | March 15, 2012 | 4 Comments
DR. ORLY TAITZ ,ESQ
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY, STE 100
SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688
PH. 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603
ORLY.TAITZ
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE § Opposition to motion for summary n § affirmance
APPELLANT, § §
v. §
§
KATHY RUEMMLER IN HER CAPACITY§
AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL §
AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS §
APPELLEE §
____________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, (Hereinafter “Taitz”) Appellant is opposing Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance as frivolous and unsupported by fact and law.
ARGUMENT
During Watergate over thirty corrupt high ranked governmental official, including the White House counsel were indicted and went to prison. Today, during ObamaForgeryGate, the level of corruption is overwhelming and far surpasses the level of corruption we saw during Watergate.
On January 26, 2012 Taitz represented several plaintiffs in the state of Georgia in a case Farrar et al v Obama et al. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI. At trial Taitz examined several witnesses, among them a senior Deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security and a licensed investigator, certified with the department of Homeland Security. All of the witnesses testified that the alleged copy of the original long form birth certificate, posted by Barack Hussein Obama on WhiteHouse.gov, represents a computer generated forgery and not a copy of any document. John Sampson, senior deportation officer, testified that with such documents he would typically seek a warrant for an arrest and deportation of an individual. (Exhibit 1 transcript of January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar et al v Obama et al) (Exhibit 3 Video tape of the trial in Farrar et al v Obama and of the March 1, 2012 press conference of Sheriff Arpaio)
On March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county held a press conference, where he confirmed all of the findings and evidence submitted to courts by Taitz. Arpaio and investigator Zulo affirmed that the alleged birth certificate of Obama is a computer generated forgery.
Subject of this case is a FOIA request to examine an alleged copy of the aforementioned forgery, which was presented to the public by the former White House counsel Robert Bauer and currently being kept by the new White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler.
1. Appellee did not provide one single authority, which would provide for a summary affirmance. There is a legitimate process of filing an Appellate brief, Appellee’s brief and Appellant’s reply. Motion for summary affirmance is not described in the rules of court and not a legitimate form of conducting an appeal.
2. The essence of the Motion for Summary affirmance, is the position of Kathy Ruemmler, White House counsel, Appellee, that White House counsel is not subject to FOIA. However, even the lower court judge disagreed with the position that the White House counsel enjoys 100%, full protection. Lower court actually agreed with the Appellant and her contention that in some situations protection from FOIA discovery does not apply. Lower court agreed that under Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 566 F3d at 222, protection from FOIA does not apply where the White House counsel or White House staff exert sufficient independent authority from the President to warrant agency treatment under FOIA.
2. In his final order Judge Lamberth noted that indeed White House Director of communications Dan Pfeifer, and Press Secretary Jay Carney and former White House counsel Robert Bauer held an independent press conference with this alleged birth certificate, which later shown to be a forgery and Mr. Obama was kept away from the document, judge Lamberth argues that there is no proof that the President did not know about their actions, that he did not direct them to act in this manner, therefore there was no independent authority and FOIA applies.
3. Whether there was an independent authority or not, this is a factual matter that needs to be decided De Novo by the trier of fact. This is not an issue to be decided summarily on a motion for Summary Affirmance. For that reason alone the motion for summary affirmance needs to be denied.
4. Additionally this approach creates a catch 22 for the Appellee. If one assumes that there was an independent action by the White House counsel during the April 27 press conference, then the alleged copy of Obama’s birth certificate is recoverable under FOIA. If there was no independent activity and White House counsel acted in unison with Mr. Obama, than we have a case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud American citizens, utter a computer generated forgery and claim it to be a basis for the position of the US President. Now, FOIA protection applies to “The President’s immediate personal staff or units in the Executive office whose sole function is to advice and assist the President are not included within the term “agency” under the FOIA, ” Kissinger v Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980). and 5 USC §552 (f). Simple construction of the statute means that
a. one is indeed a legitimate President. It does not include one who is not a legitimate President, one who got in the White House by fraud, by using a computer generated forgery instead of a valid birth certificate.
b. “advice and assist” by the White House counsel are related to the legitimate functions of a President. Defrauding the whole nation by presenting a cheap forgery and claiming it to be valid true and correct copy of a document does not represent a valid “advice and assist” by the White House counsel. For “advice” like this the White House counsel should be stripped of his position and disbarred, as well as sent together with the client to serve a lengthy prison term. Criminal enterprise, criminal collusion does not represent an advice protected by FOIA and envisioned by FOIA.
5. What is more is that the same District judge stripped protection of not only Presidential record immunity from FOIA release, but also Grand Jury proceedings immunity from FOIA release and made public Richard Nixon’s grand jury testimony as well as transcripts of White House taped conversation from 1971-1973 pursuant to FOIA request in In Re Petition of Stanley Kutler et al 10-547(RCL). Judge Lamberth ordered redaction of only a few parts of the documents, where privacy of living persons was involved and the matters of National security are involved. In case at hand Obama publicly released the content of the alleged “document”, so the privacy no longer applies. What’s more, is that the interests of the National security in this case would require the release of the document in question, and not just any release, but an immediate, expedient release, as at issue is the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency. So, why were the Nixon tapes released, while Obama’s original documents and alleged copies are so heavily guarded? The answer might be more economic than legal. It might be a part and parcel of the same reasoning, which caused Nixon to be thrown under the bus by the International oligarchy de facto running the show, and caused Obama to be protected for now.
Originally Nixon seemed to be useful for the oligarchy as he did away with the gold standard and Breton Woods agreements, however Nixon balked on GATT (Global Economic Tariffs and Trade). It seems he didn’t buy into the conclusions of the Tokyo round and became an impediment to the globalization. On the other hand Obama, in spite of his flagrant criminality and lack of any valid identification papers and lack of legitimacy, is simply convenient and obedient.
Another indication, that the decision in this case was not on the merits, not according to precedents and biased, lies in the notation made by judge Lamberth in his final order. Shockingly judge Lamberth wrote: “the President released his long form birth certificate on April 27th, 2011, and posted copy on the White House Web site. The certificate confirms the President’s birth in Honolulu Hawaii. See Michael D. Sheer, “With Document, Obama seeks to end “Birther issue” The New York Times, Apr.28, 2011, et Al.
This notation is so laughable that it makes U. S. judiciary a laughing stock in the eyes of the World jurisprudence. Clearly a high ranking federal judge or any judge for that matter, even a small claims court judge, knows that a computer image posted on the Internet does not represent a document, does not mean a release of anything. One can use an adobe illustrator or photoshop and create a birth certificate of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and post it on the Internet. A judge should know better than that, should know that some stupid article in New York times does not represent a legal authority on anything. To see a judge embarrass himself by writing some utter nonsense, attempting to give weight and authenticity to some computer image, calling it a document, by quoting some nonsense from “Communists R US New York Times” is sad, it shows total disintegration of the fabric of the system of justice. Needless to say that Obama never presented any certified copy with the embossed seal of the document in any court of law or to any elections commission, Hawaii department of Health never opened their books and never presented the original for review and authentication. Any time Taitz conducts a hearing or trial, and Obama is subpoenaed to appear and produce documents, he is too scared to appear, his attorneys are too scared to appear, as they know that no judge in any hearing would deem a computer image to be a document, and they know that they have nothing else, but this computer generated forgery.
CONCLUSION
Motion for summary affirmations needs to be denied, as there is no blanket FOIA immunity for the White House counsel and White House records. White House records were released under FOIA in quoted precedents. Aforementioned “document” presented to public by the former White House counsel Robert Bauer and currently held by White house counsel Kathy Ruemmler is not immune from FOIA release, as former White House Counsel wheeled independent authority. Additionally the “document” in question is not immune to disclosure as it is not a legitimate document prepared within the scope of work of the White House staff. It represents a forgery, a felonies act, which is outside the realm of documents covered by immunity.
Respectfully submitted,
Comments
4 Responses to “final submitted in DC”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
March 16th, 2012 @ 6:03 am
Everything you write is so powerful that for anyone to ignor your point of view is purely trying to block the truth from being known. Thank you for your hard work and we admire your intelligent clever brainpower.
March 16th, 2012 @ 8:38 am
MUST READ OUTSTANDING ARTICLE!!
“AMERICA’S ENEMIES: FROM WITHOUT……. OR WITHIN?”
Bradlee Dean
WND.com
Published: 03/08/2012 at 7:52 PM
Excerpt:
“When I look within America, I can see that since 9/11, the media elites have (of course, with the use of fear) inundated the American people with the fact that we have a foreign enemy of Islamic radicals trying to destroy America by any means necessary. I then noticed that it wasn’t a foreign enemy who they made the target; it was now the American Constitution and the people. I also noticed that it was not a foreign government asking us to give up our rights; it was our own government (and always under the guise of our “safety” and “security”).
Are foreign governments violating the Second Amendment while trying to disarm you? Are foreign governments usurping the Fourth Amendment when violating you at the airport while you travel domestically? Are foreign governments attacking your First Amendment right and America’s Christian heritage? Are foreign governments overriding the Tenth Amendment to indoctrinate your children in public schools? Are foreign governments ignoring the Fifth Amendment while facilitating the murder of 3,700 babies a day? Are foreign governments attempting to demoralize you by setting you at war with God so you can become their slaves? Are foreign governments inducing trillions of dollars of debt? In fact, it is not a foreign government; it’s those in America’s government who are FOREIGN to our God and to our Constitution.
According to Obama, terrorism is no longer applicable to Islam. Could it be because Muslims call him their own? That being the case, who are the terrorists? There are some in government today who want you to look past themselves in hopes that they can now make terrorists out of whomever disagrees with them and their administration. It’s not a foreign government that is trying to tear down the Constitution and recreate it in their own image; it’s Obama and his administration.
Let’s parallel foreign attacks on America vs. Obama’s attack on America, and see which one’s more destructive. You decide:”
Must Read The Entire Article & See The Two Videos Here:
https://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/americas-enemies-from-without-or-within/
March 16th, 2012 @ 11:14 am
Your finally getting the “comma-that” issue resolved, but you still have at least one error:
indication, that
Keep trying.
March 16th, 2012 @ 9:51 pm
Why bother? You have no chance of prevailing on this motion.