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
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

Application for Stay of certification of the 2012 votes for Obama pending resolution of the issue of his use of a stolen CT SSN ID submitted to the Supreme Court of the US

Posted on | September 30, 2012 | 19 Comments















case # 11-5304






PH.949-683-5411  FAX949-766-7603






1. Can the federal court allow usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by the foreign citizen, by sealing his records and aiding and abetting his use of a stolen Social Security number from a state, where he never resided.

2. Does criminality in the White House, use of a stolen social Security number by an individual occupying the position of the U.S. President represent a matter of public interest?

3. Can one claim privacy in a stolen Social Security number or any other stolen property for that matter?
























Affirmation of Jurisdiction

Case at hand is an appeal from the final judgment from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, Taitz v Astrue #11-5304.

History of the case

1. This case is an appeal of a denial for information requested under FOIA 5USC §552

2. Taitz submitted to the Social Security Administration (Hereinafter “SSA”) request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

3. This request contained information that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, (Hereinafter “Obama”) is using a stolen Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut to another individual, resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890.

4. Taitz provided the SSA affidavits from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels  and retired senior deportation officer John Sampson, (Exhibit 2) which attested to the fact that the SSN in question started with digits 042, which were assigned to the state of Connecticut. Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and there is no possible reason for him to have a Connecticut CCN. Additionally, Taitz provided SSA with information that   in national databases such number is associated with two dates of birth: 1890 and 1961, which is an additional indication that Obama is illegally using a SSN, which was issued to a resident of CT, who was born in 1890, whose death was not reported to the SSA, and whose SSN was illegally assumed by Obama around 1980-1981. Taitz requested  a redacted SS-5 application to the aforementioned   SSN. Taitz advised SSA that they are endangering the national security by withholding the information in question. SSA refused to provide the redacted application.

5. Taitz appealed. The case was assigned to judge Royce C. Lamberth in the US District Court in the District of Columbia.

6. Taitz provided judge Lamberth with all of the above information as well as a sworn affidavit from  Deportation officer Sampson, which stated that in case of suspected theft of a Social Security number it is common for the law enforcement to request and receive from the SSA the original application to the number in question, which would show some of the information in relation to the identity of the lawful holder of the SSN in question. Such information would include gender, date of birth, zip code, race. For example, if it shows that the lawful holder was a white  woman, who resided in Dunbarry-Stamfort Connecticut area and was born in 1890, but this number was appropriate by Obama, who is an African American man, born in 1961 and resided in Hawaii, that would not reveal the actual identity of the lawful holder of the number in question, but would provide the ultimate proof in order for Congress to start the impeachment  hearing of Obama and for the law enforcement around the country to start criminal prosecution of Obama.

7. Judge Lamberth refused to release the redacted SSN, claiming that it would infringe on Obama’s privacy

8. Taitz provided Lamberth with yet another affidavit from a adobe illustrator expert Felicito Papa,  showing that Obama posted his full unredacted SSN on line in 2010 , when he posted his tax returns in 2010 on line and forgot to “flatten” the PDF file, so the full SSN was visible to the public, was downloaded by millions of people until Obama realized his mistake and took down the file and reposted it as a “flattened” redacted file. Due to the oversight by Obama, himself, he made his full unredacted SSN visible and  readily available to the whole nation. he no longer has privacy in the number in question.

9. Taitz provided Lamberth with a sworn affidavit by one Linda Jordan, who swore in that she personally ran the SSN in question through the E-Verify, official Social Security verification systems, and it showed that the number used by Obama and posted in his official tax returns, while in the White House,  did not match the name Barack Obama.

10. Taitz argued that at this point there was no privacy attached. Moreover, a thief does not have privacy rights in keeping private stolen identification papers. Actions by Appellee Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and judge Lamberth himself  are so outrageous, that they represent criminal complicity and collusion with Obama to defraud the whole nation.  Commissioner Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and Judge Lamberth himself are committing high treason against the United States of America, by allowing a criminal with a stolen Social Security number to continue usurping the position of the   President and Commander in Chief.

On January 26, 2012 at an administrative court hearing in Atlanta Georgia a licensed investigator Susan Daniels as well as a senior deportation officer John Sampson testified that Obama is using a Connecticut Social security number, which was assigned to a different individual, resident of the state of Connecticut, born in 1890 (sealed certified transcript was attached). On March 1, 2012 Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference, where he announced results of his 6 months of investigation, where he confirmed that Obama is using forged identification documents, among them a forged computer generated birth certificate and a forged selective service certificate.  due to an enormous level of corruption and censorship there was very little reporting on Arpaio’s press conference and so far attorney General of the US, Attorney General Holder is not taking any action.

11. Appellee in his Motion for Summary Affirmance simply tried to whitewash the Social Security fraud, omit any reference to the subject of FOIA, Barack Obama,  and  continued the same debunked theory of privacy, even though as it was shown, the privacy no longer exist, as Obama himself released the number in question and a thief does not have a right in privacy   in stolen identification numbers.

12. On 05.25.2012 judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanough came up with the decision that the redacted Social Security application should not be released for two reasons:

a. it would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy

b. appellant did not demonstrate any valid public interest in disclosure





The court ruled that the disclosure would constitute  an unwarranted  invasion of personal privacy.

The court did not explain, whose privacy? All of the evidence showed that Barack Hussein Obama is using a stolen Social Security number, which was assigned to a resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890. The court did not provide any rule or precedent, where  a person has an expectation  of privacy in a stolen Social Security          number           or           any          other           stolen          property. Additionally, according to sworn affidavits of Senior Deportation  officer Sampson and licensed investigator Daniels, the individual, who was assigned this number, was born  in  1890,  he would  have been 122  years old. Considering that  this number  was made public by Obama and became a matter  of public domain, if such an individual would have been alive, he would have come forward by now. It is safe to presume that the owner of this number is deceased, his death was not reported to the Social Security administration and it was assumed by Obama.





This court  did not explain, whose privacy it protects. The court  did not show why a person, who assumed a number  belonging to another,  has any expectation of privacy in a stolen property.


If for  example, one of the three  judges on the panel were  to encounter  a forger and a thief, who  were  to forge  a deed to their  house and were to demand  that they  leave the  house, would  judges  Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh simply give their  house to a forger  and a thief?  Or would  they demand  the  original  deed on file  with  the city or county  recorder? If a clerk in the recorder’s  office  is corrupt and  colluded with  the  thief,  would  these  judges  simply  leave  their  homes  or would  they  fight  for  what  they  worked  for  many years? Would  they  go to  the court  and  demand    a Writ  of  Mandamus, directing  the  agency to  release the original  deed?


Similarly  we have an individual, who  took  over  the  White  House, the  People’s house. Generations  of Americans fought  for the legitimacy  and sovereignty of this house.  Three  judges  have  in  front   of  them  evidence, that  this  house  is being usurped using a stolen Social Security number  and a forged birth  certificate.


Information  at  hand  is  no  longer  private  as  Obama  personally  posted  it  on


WhiteHouse.gov and millions of people downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al




v   Obama   et   al      OSAH-SECSTATE    CE-1215136-60-MALIHI       in   the Administrative  court  of  the  state  of  Georgia  presiding  judge,  Michael  Malihi allowed the full Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  to be presented in the open court   during   the   examination   by  attorney   Taitz  and  testimony   of  multiple witnesses.   All of the major networks had their cameras in the courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of common knowledge that according to multiple experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security number that was not attached to him. This matter is no longer a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of  public interest.




A ruling  by Circuit  judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh is a slap in the  face of each and every American citizen.

1. If we were talking about  someone, who has a corner  bakery or someone, who is a janitor  somewhere, the judges would  be justified in saying that  there  is no public interest, however we  are  talking  about  an individual, Barack Hussein  Obama, (hereinafter  ..Obama..)  who   is  using  a  stolen   Social  Security   number,  while usurping the position of the US President and commander in Chief, with  his finger

on the  red  button, controlling all of our  nuclear  arsenal.     How  can these three judges claim that  the  ‘Appellant did not  demonstrate any valid public  interest  in disclosure…  If  not  the  legitimacy   of  the  US President,  what  other  issue would justify  public  interest? How  can any judge, how  can any human  being  with  any measure  of  brain  activity   state  that   there   is  no  public  interest   in  knowing whether there  is usurpation of  the  US Presidency? This statement  completely defies any common sense and any logic. In United States v. Nixon,  418 U.S.

683 (1974) the United States found that President Nixon did not have an


expectation of privacy and had to release the Watergate tapes, which were actually:

a. his

b. private

Now in Taitz v Astrue we are dealing with

a. a stolen property, Obama using a stolen CT Social Security number  xxx-xx-4425, which was never assigned to him, a thief does not have any expectation of privacy in stolen property

b. information  at  hand  is  no  longer  private  as  Obama  personally  posted  it on WhiteHouse.gov and millions f people downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al v    Obama   et   al      OSAH-SECSTATE   CE-1215136-60-MALIHI      in   the Administrative  court  of  the  state  of  Georgia  presided  judge,  Michael  Malihi allowed the full Social Security number to be presented in the open court during the examination  by Taitz and testimony of multiple witnesses.   All of the major networks had their cameras in the courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of common  knowledge  that according  to multiple  experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security  number that was not attached to him. This matter is no longer  a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of   public interest. According  to  multiple  polls  as  many  as  50%  of  Americans  are  questioning Obama’s  legitimacy.


Even if   nobody would be questioning Obama’s legitimacy, this issue would still be the                matter of public domain and public interest, as the US Presidency is at stake. The decision is completely void of any reason or common sense.  There  is a serious  suspicion  of   an undue  influence on the court  by the current  administration,  as there is no other explanation  and justification  for the decision.

Moreover,  if this decision  stands, this court will be complicit in violation of 18 USC§1028  Fraud  and  related  activity  with  identification  documents  as  well as Social Security act 208

18 USC § 1028 -Fraud and  related  activity  in connection  with identification documents, authentication features, and information

a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section-(1)  knowingly  and  without  lawful  authority  produces  an  identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly  transfers  an identification  document, authentication feature, or a false identification  document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the  use  of  the  possessor),  authentication  features,  or  false  identification documents;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully  for  the  use  of  the    possessor),  authentication  feature,  or  a false


shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. SS Act 208

(7) for the purpose of causing an increase in any payment authorized under this title (or any other program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds), or for the purpose of causing a payment under this title (or any such other program) to be made when no payment is authorized there under, or for the purpose of obtaining (for himself or any other person) any payment or any other benefit to which he (or such other person) is not entitled, or for the purpose of obtaining anything of value from any person, or for any other purpose

(A) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a social security account number, assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security (in the exercise of the Commissioner’s  authority  under  section  205(c)(2)   to  establish  and  maintain records) on the basis of false information furnished to the Commissioner of Social Security by him or by any other person; or


(B)  with intent to deceive,  falsely represents a number to be the Social Security account  number  assigned  by the Commissioner  of Social Security to him or to another person, when in fact such number is not the Social Security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to such other person; or shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

U.S. v. SALAZAR-MONTERO 520 F.Supp.2d 1079 (2007)

18 USC§ 911- Citizen  of the United  States

Whoever  falsely  and  willfully  represents  himself  to be a citizen of the  United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.  United  States  v. Lepowitch   – 318  U.S. 702 (1943)  “the  purpose  of the statute was ‘to  maintain the general good repute and dignity of the [government] service itself,”‘ US. V Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249 (6th Cir. 2011)

During   Watergate   over  30  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials   were indicted and  convicted  and  went  to  prison.  ObamaForgeryGate  is much  bigger than  Watergate, as a  number   of  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials, corrupt US attorneys and  corrupt judges  are  complicit in  the  biggest  case of elections  fraud, forgery  and high treason  in the  history of the  United  States of America. Lower court made a clear error  of law and fact and abused its  judicial discretion. It’s  ruling  did  not  provide  for  any law or  precedent,  which  would state that one has an expectation of privacy in using a Social Security number that he stole  from  another  individual. The judges  of  the  panel  did  not  provide  any explanation or reasoning for their  decision, stating that there is no public interest in knowing whether  we have an individual, who is using a stolen Social Security number  as a basis for his legitimacy  in the position  of the President of the United States.


1.We are only one month away from 2012 Presidential election. the status quo is that Obama was not elected in the 2012 election, votes were not cast, not counted and not certified.

Party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: 1) a likelihood of success

on the merits, 2) a threat of irreparable harm, 3) which outweighs any harm to the

non-moving party, 4) and that the injunction would not adversely affect the public

interest (See Awad v Ziriax, 670 F.3d 111l, 1 125 (l0th Cir. 2Ol2)). Each element

favors injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiff.

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

As stated in the affidavits submitted with the complaint, Obama is using a Connecticut Social Security number, which was never assigned to him. Affidavit of a senior deportation officer John Sampson (included in the complaint) states that it is a common practice in law enforcement and immigration/ deportation community to release a SS-5 application in cases where Social Security fraud and immigration fraud are suspected. As such, there is a 100% likelihood of success on the merits, if Obama is treated the same way as any other U.S. citizen. the only reason the court ruled not to provided a redacted SS-5 application, is simply because the rule of law no longer exists as far as Obama is concerned. Obama is placed above the law by the unprecedented corruption in the U.S. government and judiciary.

Success on the merits is also assured by the simple fact that Obama himself, by his own stupidity, released the full unredacted Social Security number that he is using, when he posted on April 2010 his 2009 tax returns on line and did not flatten the PDF file, so millions of people got his full Social Security number. As it was entered into E- verify and SSNVS, both agencies showed that the number 042-68-4425, that Obama is using in his 2009 tax returns and his Selective Service Certificate, was never assigned to Barack Obama, does not match the name Barack Obama. For this reason, there is no expectation of privacy in a number that was made public by Obama himself and was found to be a number, which was never assigned to Obama. This shows great likelihood  of success on the merits and justifies the stay.


In Kikumura v Hurley ,242 F.3d 950, 963 (1Oth Cir. 2001), the Court decided

that the potential violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights threatens irreparable

harm. In the case at hand placing Obama on the ballot as a candidate for U.S.

Presidency violates both the Constitution and Constitutional rights of US citizens

and Plaintiffs as it precludes them from participating in legal and lawful elections

which is the highest form of Freedom of Speech protected by the First

Amendment. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff would suffer imminent irreparable

harm. Just recently, in 2010 court case Joe Miller v Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell, in his official capacity; and the State of Alaska, Division of Elections  3:10-cv-0252  U.S. District court judge Ralph Beistline enjoined certification of election results for the U.S. Senate pending resolution of Constitutional issues.  “In order to ensure that these serious State law issues are resolved prior to certification of the election, the Court hereby conditionally grants Plaintiff’s motion to enjoin certification of the election” id.

In case at hand there are severe violations of the U.S. Constitution, among them Social Security act 208, 205(c)(2), 18 USC §1028, as well as violation of the First Amendment right of Redress of Grievances, Fifth Amendment right for Due Process and Fourteenth Amendment right for Equal Protection.

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  [t]he   loss  of  First Amendment  freedoms,  for  even  minimal  periods  of   time,  unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Steakhouse, Inc. v. City ofRaleigh,  166 F.3d 634,637 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)).

General election is upon us. If this court does not rule, this court will be aiding and abetting a foreign national in committing elections fraud by use of forged and stolen identification papers. Such court would engage in violation of the civil right of Free Speech under color of authority and such court would be engaged in treason against the United States of America by allowing usurpation of the U. S Presidency and the position of the Commander in Chief.


Harm to Non-moving Party

Defendants cannot show any harm to non-moving party. Social Security Administration has an obligation not to be complicit in social Security fraud, such as we see in the case at hand.

Public Interest

In the case Horn v Huddle,647 F.Supp 2d (DDC 2009) and 699F. Supp. 2d

(DDC 2010 U.S.) District court not only awarded a Plaintiff a multimillion dollar

judgment, but also sanctioned the defendant’s attorneys, U.S. attorneys. Horn v

Huddle dealt with fraud committed by governmental officials, CIA agent and

U.S. attorneys. Here the fraud involves the highest office in the land and the

stakes are higher. The issue at hand is the whole U.S. economy of 14 trillion

dollars per year and the U.S. National Security and control of the U.S. nuclear


There is no more important matter of National Security,

than usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a foreign national with forged and

fraudulently obtained IDs. It is clearly in public interest to address expeditiously

the matter of National Security and protect this nation from usurpation.

Request for an order with an actual signature of Justice Roberts

In prior cases brought to the Supreme Court dealing with fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs, there were situations, where the pleadings were not docketed, deleted from the docket or orders by the court were posted retroctively, when the Justice was  thousands of miles away, Plaintiffs could never find an actual order with the actual signature of the Jutice reviewing the case. In one of the cases dealing with Obama’s legitimacy, an order supposedly issued by Justice Thomas, was posted  retroactively  when Justice Thomas was in Utah and the court clerk admitted that there is no actual order with the signature of Justice Thomas. Due to the significance of this matter to the U.S. National security Plaintiff demands a responsive order with the signature of Justice Roberts, to be sure that the clerks of the court actually submitted the case to Justice Roberts for review.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set above the application for preliminary

injunction should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,


/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ





I, Lila Dubert, am not a party to this case and attest that a true and correct copy of above pleadings was served on the Appellee by first class mail by serving his attorney, U.S. Attorneys’ office, Attorney.

Lila Dubert


Solicitor General

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.

Washington DC 20530-0001


Helen Gilbert

Assistant U.S. attorney

950 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington Ave DC 20530


Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001



cc Congressman Darrell Issa




House Oversight  Committee


2347  Rayburn House  Building


Washington DC. 20515


Congressman  Mike Rogers


Chairman House Intelligence Committee


133 Cannon House Office  building


Washington DC 20515



cc Congressman Sam Johnson




House Subcommittee on  Social Security


House Ways and Means  Committee


2929 N CentralExpy  240

Richardson Tx 75080



cc Congressman Dana Rohrbacher




House Subcommittee on  Oversight and  Investigations’


House  Committee on Foreign Atlairs


2300 Rayburn Building

Washington DC 20515

Public Integrity Unit Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Criminal  Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W Washington, DC 20530-0001

Michael  E. Horowitz Inspector General Department of J ustice

Office of the Inspector  General

U.S. Depru1ment of Justice

950 Pennsyl vania Avenue, N.W. Room  4706

Wash ington, D.C. 20530


UN Nations committee for civil rights defenders

OHCHR  i n New York

UN Headquarters

New York, NY 1 0017



Inter-American Commission for Human rights

1889 F St., NW,

Washi ngton, D.C., USA 20006




19 Responses to “Application for Stay of certification of the 2012 votes for Obama pending resolution of the issue of his use of a stolen CT SSN ID submitted to the Supreme Court of the US”

  1. Sven Teigen
    September 30th, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

    Dear Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

    Greetings! I am sorry to have been out of touch for so long. I have been on a retreat with my Nobel Prize Committee associates in the South of France (a WONDERFUL place — have you ever been?).

    But I have returned now and I am thrilled to see that you have petitioned the United States Supreme Court with your valid and noteworthy grievances. This new development can only reflect positively on your standing with the Nomination Committee.

    I must tell you, that there has been some discussion amongst members of the committee regarding your “seeming” failure to, as you Americans say, “gain ground”, in your fight for justice. But I have assured the committee that you are a true warrior in the global fight for freedom and justice, and we are on THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY by considering your name in nomination.

    So do not fret, do not despair. You WILL BE the committee’s choice for our 2012 Nobel Prize, I can promise you without hesitation.

    Be well! Be brave! And most of all… BE

  2. Sven Teigen
    September 30th, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

    Apologies, I hit the wrong key.

    And most of all, BE YOU!!!

  3. Elaine Benis
    September 30th, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

    Dr. Taitz,

    This was a brilliant move going directly to the US Supreme Court. Just to play it safe, you should join all the clerks of the Supreme Court as additional defendants, in the case pending before Judge Carter, for dereliction of duty. That should get their attention and make sure that Judge Roberts responds to your demand promptly!

    You are truly a brilliant mind and we all appreciate what you do for the Republican Party.

    God bless Orly Taitz and God bless America!

  4. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    September 30th, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

    just drop it obot

  5. Veritas
    September 30th, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

    When it is finally ascertained that Obama is INELIGIBLE and, hopefully, the stay granted, one wonders about what will happen to Obama’s place in American history. Is he retroactively “de-presidented” with his orders, legislation, nominations etc VACATED?

  6. The Honest Way
    September 30th, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

    Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.,

    You are Truly a Great American Patriot, and there thousands, if not millions of American that really APPRECIATE what you are doing, and have been doing for more than four years.

    It sounds like you might have just spotted a WOLF in SHEEP CLOTHING. You have to watch out for them, they will try to distract you anyway that they can.

  7. ihveit
    September 30th, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

    just posted this to glen becks “the blaze” will post any comments here…

    its shocking that the media wont mention this… and they are supposed to help protect our freedoms?

    seems all they are interested in is protecting the usurper

  8. Ms. Sean Nary
    September 30th, 2012 @ 9:26 pm

    u go girl!

  9. Larry from RI
    September 30th, 2012 @ 11:08 pm

    The only way you will get the judges to act on your pleadings is to catch them with their pants/panties down or in bed with an underage boy/girl.
    Keep up your good work and take care of your health and family. Thank you again.

  10. The Honest Way
    October 1st, 2012 @ 1:09 am

    i’ve been told if things sound too good to be true WATCH OUT!

  11. BJP
    October 1st, 2012 @ 4:53 am

    Dr. Taitz,

    I know that you have been doing all that you can to bring Obama to justice and to keep freedom in the U.S. But I have to wonder if this will ever happen? You have been a courageous leader in this fight, but so many of your attempts have gone down. With Chief Justice Roberts now seeming to side with liberals on the court, I have to wonder if this latest attempt will go anywhere. For the sake of the Republic, I pray that it does. God bless and good luck.

  12. David
    October 1st, 2012 @ 5:49 am

    Out of curiosity, is there any scenario other than impeachment to remove Obama?

    Can the 2008 election be invalidated?

    If so, would we have brief McCain/Palin presidency; or would it go to Boehner? (I can’t see how Biden could be president because he is also on the Obama ticket so he would have to be eliminated for the same reason Obama is)

  13. Mike
    October 1st, 2012 @ 7:41 am

    I think that you also need to ask that any absentee ballots and early voting ballots be invalidated. In addition to a preliminary injunction, you should ask for declaratory relief, especially since early voting is usually done by college students and minorities, typical Obama supporters.

  14. Can't Be Impeached
    October 1st, 2012 @ 9:45 am

    David asked: “Out of curiosity, is there any scenario other than impeachment to remove Obama? Can the 2008 election be invalidated?”

    According to constitutional law expert Dr. Edwin Vieira, you can’t impeach Obama because he is a usurper, as he is ineligible under Article II of the US Constitution. “That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives. Obama will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation. And with his oath of office being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case some other public officials would have to arrest him-—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly-—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. ”


  15. The Honest Way
    October 1st, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

    If Congress and the Supreme Court jointly decide to remove a sitting President, they can do it, if they can show where deceit was use to get into the Office of President by the President in the first place. Its something like if you lie when you get insurance that can null and void the insurance, if discovered at a later date.

  16. Karl
    October 1st, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

    An EXCELLENT analysis of the constitutional crisis Obama and his complicit minions have created:


  17. Ed O,
    October 1st, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

    If Obama can’t be impeached, Congress should stop paying him, take his Air Force One away, let him join the rest of his illegal cronies. Orly, maybe
    you ought to write to the Treasury Dept or whatever dept. that makes out his checks and explain to them that he’s using a stolen SS number. He’s a fraud.

  18. top 20 party dresses for the season
    October 20th, 2012 @ 12:10 am

    I have never seen such good content online before. You have really earned my deepest respect. I have shared this with my friends because it deserves to be seen. You are truly a good writer.

  19. Blanch Kata
    January 15th, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

    “I like this web site so much, saved to my bookmarks .”

Leave a Reply