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

Sorry, I can’t be a president, I am not a Natural Born citizen, but I can be an Attorney General and I can put all the criminals in prison

Posted on | November 3, 2009 | 5 Comments

Two Women Save America

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 6:39 PM
To:
“Dr. Orly Taitz” <dr_taitz@yahoo.com>
 
Dr.Taitz,
  I see the next President and Vice president of the United States in this picture.
Go for it!
 
Tony Palmieri
Category: Uncategorized

Comments

5 Responses to “Sorry, I can’t be a president, I am not a Natural Born citizen, but I can be an Attorney General and I can put all the criminals in prison”

  1. Harry H
    November 3rd, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

    Orly, I thought you would be interested in my recent exchange with Leo Donofrio at his blog, naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. Leo’s replies are in brackets below (your words are in quotes near the end):

    Leo, I understand your view that Carter has strengthened your argument for quo warranto in D.C., but your overly generous support for Carter ignores some glaring excesses in his dismissal.

    On p. 17 Carter said he could not take the case because if plaintiffs won it would “shut down the functioning of the government of the United States and leave this country defenseless.” That is an absurd lie.

    [ed. I read that to mean that if he took it on illegally and plaintiffs won, that would cause anarchy. And he might be right about that. It would set a precedent for other branches to disobey the Constitution and for the military as well. He could have worded it better, but it’s not really a false statement either.]

    On p. 19 Carter quotes an irrelevant 1866 case (Mississippi v Johnson) thus: “in general ‘ this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties’ ” That is just a red herring; no “bill to enjoin . . .” was submitted to Carter, and “in general” is meaningless.

    [ed. I don’t think it’s a meaningless case.]

    On p. 23 Carter contradicts himself regarding quo warranto when he proclaims that a president can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process. QW in D.C. is not impeachment in the standard sense of that word.

    [ed. He didn’t say qw was impeachment. He lists the 25th amendment as another source of Potus removal power granted to Congress.]

    Throughout the dismissal Carter keeps returning to how he cannot “upheave” or “overthrow” the 69 million votes for Obama. This is another red herring, since the point of the case was not who won the election but whether the election was legitimate or not.

    [ed. The fact remains that “He” does not have the power to overturn the election. He also does not have the power to review Potus eligibility at all since he has no power to enforce any findings thereto. Federal District Courts are not empowered to issue advisory opinions. They may issue declaratory judgments, but only if they have the power to enforce such judgments. A declaratory judgment which does not have the power of enforcement is a simple advisory opinion and neither Carter
    nor any other Federal Court (other than the DC District Court) can take action.]

    By the way, I know you will not work with Orly Taitz, but here FYI is her reply to your advice re QW:

    “First of all I am not licenced in DC and they do not allow regular pro hac vice (out of state counsel), they have a special rule on that.

    [ed. She could have used donations to hire DC counsel to file the motion if her argument is that she wasn’t admitted. You shouldn’t put your clients in the wrong court because you – their attorney – aren’t admitted to the right court. You go out and hire outside counsel to assist you. Perhaps she will do that now that Judge carter has dismissed he case. It has no chance on appeal.

    But she really doesn’t need to be admitted in DC to have her clients bring a verified petition to the court. This is because the clients will not be the party bringing the action if the court approves their ex relator application. It will be the US who is the party. She doesn’t issue the verified petition, only her clients are necessary for that. Furthermore, under the statute, if the court grants leave to her clients, the statute says that “any attorney” may conduct the proceedings. My discussions with other attorneys have led me to believe that there is no need to be a member of the DC Bar for this “miscellaneous” action and so she probably does not have to be admitted in DC.
    But the verified petition can be brought by her clients without the need for any attorney to sign the pleadings.]

    Second: If Donofrio believes DC is the best place, why doesn’t he file there himself? I’ll work with him. Keep in mind, I have to do 3 appeals: two in GA and one in CA. Donofrio has no cases going.”

    [ed. Those are her clients. Not mine. I will file when and if a person approaches me to be their counsel and I believe such person has a reasonable chance of winning and also if I feel that it is in the best interest of that person to file a quo warranto. I will not just file it for the hell of it to test his eligibility. I require a genuine plaintiff who has good reason to file and who was injured by the POTUS.

    But she doesn’t need me to file for her clients there. She can prepare the verified complaint and have them sign it. Although, the plaintiffs all have different claims to whether they are “interested persons” and therefore it does not appear to be in their best interest to file as one claim. They should be separated.]

    Yours, Harry H

  2. RSA9999
    November 3rd, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

    Orly:

    Not being a natural born citizen did not stop Obama but being the ethical person you are I will back you for Attorney General. We need women of substance for key positions. Sarah Palin knows this. Thank you for all you have done for this country. As a LEGAL alien, I know you have given more to this country than its natural born citizens. Men need to step it up if they want to be respected. I am not surprised that it took a naturalized alien woman to go furthest in the quest to unseat the usurper and a natural born male to be the one to block the process. Personally, I don’t want Obama voted out, I want him and his abetters outed in the most embarrassing and transparent way possible. God bless you Orly, if you do nothing more, you have already earned more respect than 100 so-called marine carters (lower case intentional).

  3. J Radin
    November 4th, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

    Hooray!

  4. JaneP
    November 4th, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

    Dr. Orly,

    Maybe when Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman take office after 2012 you will be Attorney General.

    Have you talked to them about it?