29 Responses to “Press release- update on the case of Major Cook”

1. WATCHER
   August 12th, 2009 @ 12:02 am

   the state and federal goverment are broken period. corruption has won. people need to hope they can vote these fucks out if there is a next time. 🙂 because these fucks are working daily to rob us of our fucking freedoms, such as voting. 🙂

2. Civis Naturaliter Natus
   August 12th, 2009 @ 12:31 am

   Dear Dr. Taitz,

   Can you not get the Appeals court first to remove the seal, on the grounds that by sealing his reasons, he is denying Cook due process?

   That should be quick an easy, since it is so obvious…

3. Lamarr01
   August 12th, 2009 @ 12:47 am

   The first day Obama was in office he signed an executive order that restricts access to Presidential Records for up to twelve years.

   https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/

   I can’t read legalese but this order extends to personal records, college transcripts, medical records, etc. A judges decision on Obama’s eligibility might fall under this executive order.

4. Jacob
   August 12th, 2009 @ 1:01 am

   Whatever happened with Judge Carter in California that wanted to go forward with your case?

5. P. Barnett
   August 12th, 2009 @ 1:26 am

   Tyranny!!!! No justice in the U.S. for politicians – they get away with everything, unless their political party allows them to be a sacrificial lamb.

6. hoosier
   August 12th, 2009 @ 1:27 am

   So, Orly actually has the Certified copy of the kenyan document from 1964?

7. Everett Mann
   August 12th, 2009 @ 1:40 am

   Whew, you are GOOD! But pray tell, what does Barack U Bama mean in Hebrew? (see Luke 10:18)

8. MinutemanCDC_SC
   August 12th, 2009 @ 2:32 am

   Whether or not Orly Taitz has Judge Lazarra’s reasoning available to write her response, I think his denial has to give her an automatic pass to the superior court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has jurisdiction over federal cases originating in the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. If the Eleventh Circuit Court (intentionally?) does something similar, that would give Maj. Cook and Dr. Taitz an automatic ticket for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But SCOTUS would probably send it back to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals with a mandate to actually decide the case.

   The Obama eligibility cases are too hot to touch, and no one is willing to mar his future career chances by hearing such a case, except U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana, California . . . if his superiors give him that opportunity.

   [url=https://207.41.19.15/Web/OCELibra.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/5978c304e2e281d088256f2d005f4d38?OpenDocument]These judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are superior above District Judge Carter[/url] (I think… correct me if I am wrong). One of them will likely take [u]Keyes v. Obama[/u] away from District Judge Carter and try the case in his or her court.

   Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (Pasadena)
   Harry Pregerson (Los Angeles)
   Stephen Reinhardt (Los Angeles)
   Pamela Ann Rymer (Pasadena)
   Kim McLane Wardlaw (Pasadena)
   Raymond C. Fisher (Pasadena)
   Richard A. Paez (Pasadena)
   Milan D. Smith, Jr. (El Segundo)
   Sandra S. Ikuta (Pasadena)

   I expect that the extremely liberal and activist judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will not give District Judge David O. Carter a chance to reconvene [u]Keyes v. Obama[/u], lest he call for discovery.

9. Rebecca James
   August 12th, 2009 @ 3:52 am

   Judge Lazarra was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997. That explains his actions very clearly.

10. Pixel Patriot
    August 12th, 2009 @ 6:15 am

    Orly,
    We are behind you 100%. Let’s go people.
    “We the People” not we the sheeple.

11. steve
    August 12th, 2009 @ 6:22 am

    I think folks need to be made aware of this. I would like to post this on my blog with your permission. Thank you.
    steve

12. Micheal
    August 12th, 2009 @ 7:41 am

    The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen

    https://www.oilforimmigration.org/

    Thanks Truth Exists – The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen
    Posted on August 12th, 2009 by David-Crockett

    and the clear and compelling evidence that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen.

    Published by Birthers.org

    What is a Citizen?

    Before defining what a natural born citizen is and how one acquires this status, it is important to understand what a generic citizen is and why a country bestows citizenship upon the members of a society. A citizen is a member of a particular nation who has been given certain rights, privileges, and immunities that are not given to people of other nations. Such rights include voting in elections, receiving a passport, and in some countries can include owning property. A privilege nations extend to citizens is holding elected office and some countries extend immunities to their citizens by preventing them from being extradited to face criminal charges in other countries.

    Countries do not extend citizenship solely to grant rights, privileges and immunities to people. Citizenship is granted with the expectation of allegiance given to the country bestowing the benefits of citizenship. Countries demand that this allegiance be observed by its citizens and also impose obligations both civil and military. In times of crisis, nations need to draw upon its citizens to establish a loyal force to defend its borders and claims. In all times, nations, use the taxation of its citizens, both individuals and corporations to insure its treasury is adequately funded to meet its needs. These obligations are duties that its citizens must fulfill and that it cannot impose upon aliens and foreigners.

    The most basic definition of a citizen is one who is a member of a particular nation and is entitled to receive rights, privileges and immunities from that particular nation that are not bestowed upon people of other nations in exchange for their allegiance in performing certain obligations not expected of people of other nations when called upon to do so.

    Merriam Webster dictionary defines a citizen as “a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state.” Law.dom dictionary defines a citizen as “a person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation.”

    The Current Methods of Becoming a US Citizen

    Throughout the history of the United States of America there have been only three major classes of citizens: original, naturalized and born. On April 19, 1775, the United States of America entered into armed revolt against the tyrannical rule of the English King. On that date, these freedom fighters ceased being subjects of Great Britain and became Americans. July 4, 1776 was merely the date when the second Continental Congress declared to the world its intentions that had already been manifested on the battlefields. From April 19, 1775 until September 17, 1787, those that remained or who came to the 13 original states and who were naturalized by the laws of those states during that time were classified as original citizens in the Constitution. This classification of citizenship no longer exists in the present day United States.

    A naturalized citizen is a very specific class of citizen whose existence is defined in our Constitution and laws. Naturalization is the process by which aliens declare their intent to be a member of the United States. Setting forth the rules of naturalization is a constitutional function of Congress under Article I. Since 1790, the Congress has enacted naturalization laws, which determine how a foreign national transforms into a national of the United States. A naturalized citizen is equal to in status as any other class of citizen except those of the natural born citizen class, and only for the expressed purpose of Article II, Section1.

    The last method and the most common way to become an American citizen is simply to be born a citizen. The United States has always had two principles that determine if a person is born a citizen of the United States.

    … the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). From the office of Citizenship and Immigration Services

    Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the States themselves were sovereign and created the rules to determine who was a born citizen of that State and by extension of the Nation. Some States extended citizenship to people born within those States (jus soli), while other States granted citizenship to the children of citizens of those States (jus sanguinis.) Each State placed restrictions upon who could be granted citizenship based upon birth. These restrictions were based upon one’s status and race. Some states discriminated against the race of a person, other states discriminated against one’s status as a freeman, bondservant or slave regardless of race, and some states restricted citizenship based upon a combination of both statuses.

    The term jus soli describes a person born in the country, and jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens. Persons who claims their citizenship based solely on the principle of jus soli are called “native born citizens” and these persons’ claims are based on the geographical location of their birth. On the other hand persons who are born only under the principle of jus sanguinis are called a “consanguineously born citizens,” and their claim of citizenship is based on inheritance. Both principles are equal in making one a born citizen. Being a born citizen extends to them one particular immunity not given to naturalized citizens, in that born citizens are immune from involuntarily renouncing their citizenship. A naturalized citizen can have his citizenship revoked for several reasons, but under current law, born citizens must walk into a US Embassy abroad and in front of the Consul renounce their citizenship.

    The only two methods of obtaining US citizenship today are defined as Naturalization and Birth. Of the birth method of obtaining citizenship there are two principles recognized under our law. These are jus soli, which is based on the place of birth, and jus sanguinis which is based on the parents. We are now able to refer to the Euler diagram below called “Methods of Citizenship” in determining the ways to be considered a US citizen today. (If you are unfamiliar with Euler diagrams, the large circle and the space not occupied by either naturalized or born citizens does not indicate that there is any other type of citizen. The large circle is used to collect the two methods of becoming US citizens in one location called US Citizen so to separate them from other citizens such as a citizen of the world or a citizen of Rome.)

    Methods of Citizenship

    From this diagram (see at birthers.org), we are able to make nine logical statements concerning general citizenship in the United States.

    1. All naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States.
    2. All born citizens are citizens of the United States.
    3. All born citizens are not naturalized citizens.
    4. All naturalized citizens are not born citizens.
    5. All Born citizens under the principle of jus soli are citizens of the United States.
    6. All born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis are citizens of the United States
    7. All born citizens under both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis are citizens of the United States.
    8. Not all born citizens under the principle of jus soli are born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis. (i.e. children born in the US to alien parents)
    9. Not all born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis are born citizens under the principle of jus soli. (i.e. children born to US parents overseas)

    The Reason for a “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. Article II, Section 1

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” John Jay, July 25, 1787

    To understand whom the future Chief Justice John Jay wanted to exclude from being Commander in Chief we need to examine the definition of Foreigner. Using the three most authoritative dictionaries, we can see who should be excluded and for what reason. We can then start to arrive at a definition of a “natural born citizen,” that meets this requirement.

    MerriamWebster Dictionary – “a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country.”

    Oxford English Dictionary – “One who is a subject of another country than that in which he resides. A resident foreign in origin and not naturalized, whose allegiance is thus due to a foreign state.”

    Blacks Law Dictionary – “A person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country in which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign”

    What all of these definitions have in common with the word citizen is allegiance. The target of the allegiance is different between a foreigner and a citizen. Since the reason for this prohibition of the admission of Foreigners into the office of Commander in Chief, is to prevent the military from being used by non-American powers against the Republic. Jay recommended and the framers agreed that this person must have a natural allegiance that is total and absolute to the Nation and to no any other nation or potentate.

    We can look at the citizenship types from the diagram above and make some logical statements of both methods (naturalized and born) of being a citizen in light of allegiance. These statements are made with reliance on generally known and accepted facts.

    Naturalized Citizens are not considered for President because of the following observations that could allow the admission of Foreigners into the Administration holding the post of Commander in Chief.

    1. All naturalized citizens were citizens of another country at one point before naturalization.
    2. All naturalized citizens renounce the former allegiances and take an oath of allegiance to the United States, but not all naturalized citizens are honest taking the oath of allegiance.
    1. Some countries send their nationals into a targeted country to become citizens for the purpose of facilitating the affairs of their country of origin. These “citizens” are not acting as registered agents of their former countries, but are acting as de facto spies for that country. However, because they took the oath of allegiance they are not considered enemy agents or spies they are considered traitors.

    This does not mean that all naturalized citizens are disloyal or have ulterior motives for coming to America. It simply means that allowing naturalized citizens to be President opens the possibility of a Foreigner acting under foreign influence. It is understood by the vast majority of American citizens that naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President of the United States and further discussion of this method of becoming a citizen is not necessary.

    At this point discussion will be based solely on the method of citizenship called Born Citizen. As stated above there are two legal principles at work in determining if one is a born citizen. Refer to the Euler diagram below called “Principles of Born Citizenship”

    Principles of Born Citizenship

    Not all Born Citizens are considered for President because of the following observations that could allow the admission of Foreigners into the Administration holding the post of Commander in Chief.

    1. All born citizens owe allegiance to the United States.
    2. Not all born citizens under jus soli have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners.
    1. Some born citizens, especially those born to alien parents inherit citizenship via jus sanguinis from their parents’ native countries.

    i. It is possible for a born citizen US citizen to be born with citizenship in three distinct countries. These citizenships can come from the country of birth via jus soli, and the country of the father and the country of the mother via jus sanguinis.

    1. Not all born citizens under jus sanguinis have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners.
    1. Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship in the country of birth via jus soli.
    2. Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship from a non-US citizen parent via jus sanguinis.
    2. All born citizens under both jus soli and jus sanguinis from both US citizen parents have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, their allegiance cannot be claimed by another country.
    1. No other country can grant citizenship via jus soli.
    2. No other country can grant citizenship via jus sanguinis.

    i. Naturalized citizen parents have renounced their former citizenships to become naturalized American citizens and can no longer pass on jus sanguinis citizenship of their former country as an automatic birthright.

    We can now say with certainty that the term “a natural born citizen” is a person who is born owing to only one country his or her complete and undivided national allegiance. It is only to this individual that the Constitution of the United States of America entrusts the office of President and the responsibilities of Commander in Chief to, there is no other. A natural born citizen is a refining subset of that group of citizens called born citizens. Refer to figure labeled, “The Unification Principles of Natural Born Citizen.“

    The Unification Principles of Natural Born Citizen

    At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, there was one and only one definition that combined both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis into a definition of natural born citizen.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Emmerich Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives

    This definition was echoed by Congressman John A. Bingham, who is considered the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the congressman said this concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866, this definition was not replaced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866

    This definition has been codified into American Common Law through the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Unanimous opinion of the court. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

    The definition of a natural born citizen written by Vattel and recounted by both Congressman Bingham and the Supreme Court, was what the Framers of the Constitution wanted when the wrote and ratified Article II, Section 1. There can be no other definition that provides the strong check that John Jay urged Washington to incorporate into the Constitution to guard against those who could have allegiances to a foreign power from being Commander and Chief of our armed forces. Until we as a nation change the Constitution this is the only standard we can use to call someone an Article II natural born citizen.

    Using available material the Framers of Constitution and the architects of Article II, section 1 had on hand, authoritative statements made by one of the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a Supreme Court decision after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, allows us to create a natural born citizen matrix.

    The Fourteenth Amendment does not make one born in the United States “a natural born citizen,” it only makes them a “born citizen.”

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1

    The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to insure that no state could or would deprive the newly freed slaves or their children the rights of citizenship. This can be seen in the remaining text of Section 1.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2

    This Amendment did not nor does it alter the principle of jus sanguinis. The principle of jus sanguinis has been established by the States before the Constitution and codified into national law since 1790. The freed slaves were not US citizens at the time they were freed and could not have passed US Citizenship to their children. This amendment extended the principle of jus soli uniformly across the nation, hence the term ‘born … in the United States’ appears in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The plain words of this section cannot be ignored. There is no term “natural born” anywhere to be found. The reason it is not found is because there are the two methods of citizenship that are joined by a logical ‘or,’ which treats both methods as being equal. What they are equal to is the most generic term citizen. This is the one concept all American citizens share, whether we are a naturalized citizen, a born citizen under the principle of jus soli, a born citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis, or a natural born citizen under both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis, we are all citizens of the United States.

    The most disputed term in the Fourteenth Amendment is the term, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ From the civil rights act we find the words, “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” We can clearly see that just two years later the phrase, “not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” was replaced with the phrase, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Clearly this did not change the essence of meaning, as the most complete and reliable definition we have closest to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is from Senator Lyman Trumbull, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was instrumental in drafting the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull clearly and succinctly states the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, “What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means … It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance … to some other government that he is ’subject’ to the jurisdiction of the United States.” It is not our intention to expand this paper into other current topics, the explanation of “subject to the jurisdiction” is only to reinforce the fact that at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment the general sentiment was that US citizenship carried with it a complete allegiance to the United States.

    The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ has been interpreted differently then what the Amendments architects originally said in the case of Wong Kim Ark. This is a landmark case in citizenship. It is not our intention to take this into the topic of immigration; however it is necessary to examine this decision as it relates to the specifics of a natural born citizen. There is one statement in the decision of Wong Kim Ark that seems to add unnecessary confusion to the term a “natural born citizen.”

    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Justice Horace Gray Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    There are historical factors that need explanation. But first let’s simply look at the logic of what Justice Gray is saying. He is saying the principle (singular) that both a native born and natural born share is the same. We know that a “natural born citizen” is a citizen that has two principles to claim citizenship with, jus soli and jus sanguinis. On the other hand, a “native born citizen” has to satisfy only one principle, jus soli to be granted citizenship. It is the principle of jus soli that is the same principle that a “natural born citizen” shares with a “native born citizen” in making them a citizen of the United States, so what Justice Gray stated is correct. This is proven by applying the same statement to a born citizen born overseas by a citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis. If Justice Gray had said, “The child of a citizen, if born out the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle” this would hold true, but the singular principle would not have been jus soli, but rather jus sanguinis. See diagram “Shared principles of born citizens and natural born citizen.” (see at birthers.org)

    Shared principles of born citizens and natural born citizen

    The historical factors that need to be considered at the time of Justice Gray’s opinion are, the right to confer the birthright principle of jus sanguinis was limited to the father. This right was not extended to women until 1934 and was upheld as late as 1961 in the case of Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308). Therefore, the citizen parent that Justice Gray is speaking of is the father. The law in effect at that time of his ruling, Revised Statutes of 1878, also gave the mother instant citizenship if she were an alien married to a US citizen, making both parents US citizens. This decision has not altered the integrity or meaning of the definitions of a natural born citizen from Vattel, Congressman Bingham remarks or the Minor v. Happersett decision concerning the necessity of parents plural for conferring upon a native-born citizen the status of natural born citizen. It is also obvious that from the accepted law and definition of a natural born citizen at the time of the ruling, Wong Kim Ark would never qualify as natural born citizen and future concerns about Article II, Section 1 were never addressed by the Court as these concerns were not germane to the issue in front of the court, which was general citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    We can now update our original Euler diagram to include natural born citizens as a proper subset of Born Citizens. (see at birthers.org)

    How does this effect Barack Hussein Obama, II and his sworn declaration of being a natural born citizen?

    Primarily is the issue of the Certificate of Live Birth that Barack Hussein Obama, II is secreting from the American public is of major concern because it deprives the public of the information needed to determine if he is telling the truth, or lying about his natural born citizen status. Unlike the COLB, which is short hand for Certification of Live Birth, the Certificate of Live Birth has the necessary information to either quickly determine the natural born status of the child or can easily point to further documentation needed to conclude this determination. The key pieces of information contained in the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth are the place of birth of the child and the place of birth for both parents. (See photo called Hawaiian Long Form from August 5, 1961) If either the father or mother were born overseas, then the next piece of evidence required to validate the “natural born citizen” claim would be proof of American citizenship of the parents of the parent born overseas. This can be either in the form of a naturalization certificate or birth certificates of the parents of the parent born overseas proving they were able to transfer jus sanguinis, birthright citizenship to the parent of the child requiring confirmation of his or her claim.

    Hawaiian Long Form from August 5, 1961

    Putting aside the issue of what constitutes a legal Certificate of Live Birth for proving natural born status under Article II, Section 1. If we take the information found in Barack Hussein Obama, II’s “Fight the Smears” website we discover the following

    Obama is claiming to be a native citizen of the United States of America. This means he is claiming a status of ‘a Born Citizen’ under the principle of jus soli. It is interesting to note that he is not claiming a natural born status, as required by Article II. Leave it as it is for now.

    On the same page, we see from FactCheck.org, Barack Hussein Obama, II admitting his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Furthermore the cite states that his birth was governed by the British government through the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    This Act conferred the title of British subject upon Barack Hussein Obama, II.

    Under Section 5 of this Act, citizenship is passed from father to child.

    5. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

    Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

    (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

    Note: Barack Hussien Obama, Sr. was in fact born in Kenya a British Protectorate and crown colony. At one time Hawaii was a British Protectorate, (1794–1843), in which the British Crown had jurisdiction of British Subjects. If you have any doubts please look at the flag of Hawaii. Either of these provisions fulfills the requirements of subsection 5 of the British Nationality Act. Regardless if his birthplace was Kenya or Hawaii Barack Hussein Obama, II is a British Subject. His father’s birth was in a British Colony or his birth if in Hawaii which was at one time a British Protectorate.

    (b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or

    Note: While subparagraph (a) makes this irrelevant, we have had neither a statement from Obama, II stating this option was not exercised, nor do we have independent confirmation from an authoritative source denying this.

    Using the information contained on his website, we can accurately produce a natural born citizen matrix for him to see if he is in fact an Article II, natural born citizen.

    Using both the law and logic it can now clearly be seen that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen as required to hold the office of President of the United states of America and be the Commander in Chief of its armies as required under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    He does not meet the full and complete description of a “natural born citizen,” which is a citizen who has unity of citizenship at birth to one and only one country via by both Jus soli (place) and Jus sanguinis (the parents,) who is born in the country to two citizens of the country. Such a citizen can only have his allegiance claimed by one country. A natural born citizen cannot evade civic or military obligations by repatriating himself or herself to another country since a natural born citizen does not have dual or multiple citizenships by birth. A natural born citizen who gives his or her allegiance to another country during a time of war cannot justify it by saying he or she is a spy or a patriot for some other country for which he or she also has citizenship via birth. Such a person is simply a traitor to his or her natural born country.

    Obama’s refusal to release his long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii, his manipulation of facts, his own statements can only lead a reasonable person to believe that he intentionally has lead the United States of America into a Constitutional Crisis.

    However, this can now be resolved by the state court of the State of Arizona, if there is one sheriff, one prosecutor, one judge, one state representative loyal to the Constitution, because on December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

    The question now is can America find one honest public servant in Arizona who believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution. If we can find officers of the court loyal to the Constitution then Chris Matthews will really get a tingle up his leg when he sees Obama in the pink underwear issued to him by Sheriff Joe Arpaio

    Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen of the USA!

13. Martin Pinsky
    August 12th, 2009 @ 7:55 am

    This is –yet again- another clarion call for justice in an unjust society especially in these recent times and under these recent totalitarian American sell out circumstances. It is a call for retribution and a reckoning.

    How honest is this statement? Well How angry is a lawyer working as hard and as astutely as this to come up against a stupid brickwall of judicial sell out. Oh they use the law and these retarded judges have unlimited power and they seem to hang around forever– what a powerful argument for term limitations across the board on up to scotus.
    NOBODY is that valuable or important that we need to tolerate them hanging around all their lives. A new wind that blows in strongly has a cleansing effect at least for a little while before man reverts to his petty , dangerous and yes, stupid games–for every crime fighter there are ten criminals, so things don’t imporve in a corrupt and corrupted society because we have beaurcrats pretending to serve the public.

    This judge mentioned above, is part of entrenched complacent american society. he has the authority to bend the rules as it suits him—he should be impeached–like alcie hastings–and, God Bless America, his constituents vote him into the congress.

    In being a close observor or our russian legal maverick orly, I have noticed as have most of you i suppose, that Orly has a temper and when it flares up, she gets more controlled and instead of swinging a broad sword in errant fashion, she uses her paier wit and legal garb to strike back in clear pointed english. She vents at the same time that she attacks, but her sharp legal sword hits a rock of recalcitrance, this the expression STONEWALLING. closely followed by corruption and collusion.

    You can see that in history, complacent totalitarian systems ultimately get dismantled but usually after causing untold damge. The people rise in rebellion VISCERALLY, for get rhetorical hyperboly and intellectual bullshit. They know–as now, that somehting is fundimentally wrong.

    Right nowObama has his beria, gobbells, Trotsky and assorted lackeys that really would serve anyone in power–in NYC we call them suck asses– a coarse expression to be sure- but how coarse, obscene and dirty are they when they flaunt the law and spit in your face. How long do decent people have to abide this before they act and react?

    If you are playing chess in an honest and capable way on your side while the other side is cheating, do you think it might be wise to knock his pieces off the board before he knocks yours off?

    The Mombasa BC was a required legal docuemnt at a divorce hearing–the long and short of it and who is going risk present a forged document to the Judge handling the divorce.

    Certaoin people in media are on the fence on this matter, but cannot help feeling the wnds of truth and change leaning them however reluctantly toward an honest view of basic facts. Obama is a liar and a thief and he is surrounded by low life bastards and he should be thrown out, and behind him every phony judge and politician and media traitor.

    Any corrective movement–call it what you will– needs a leader and a center focus backed by adherants–this is basic to massive poltical and societal change. IF the people know the truth and the system that administers this country ighnor or avoid the truth, then the system is not worthy of respect–this is what underlies the military pundits attached to orly standing up to justice misapplied for political reasons.

    What is my point? How do we fight SORO’s move on machine, acorn well funded with thheir people heading into neighborhoods like itinerant preachers? How do you fight politicized judges who become policy makers rather than administering justice through the law. and what do you do when you have a case like that above? All that is is judicial bullying by an entrenched complacent judge–he should be impeached.

    But as we will soon see the problem in america today regarding this eligibility situation as our point of contention, is one that is building pressure and one cannot at this p[oint discount an explosive people’s reaction –as in the kettle boiling over–as you are seeing in these town hall meetings that so annoy Comrade pelosi and that super annuated twit Spector–go away spector! retured already!-

    And the Obama orchestrated townhall meeting? Really=- how long are we supposed to take this usurper traitor bastard and the insults to decency and civility coming from judges and politicians. These people are really too stupid to gauge what is really going on.The people are angry and I do not think they will wait for the next election. Adolph Obama wants to hold on at any cost TO US–the people of america – millions of whom were duped into voting for Obama, and that idiot Bush sure helped along with the biggest republican mistake in history in putting up McCain–who really is not right in his head afterhis stay at the hanoi Hilton–God bless him and his notable family, but he is really gone mentally.

    Orly reminds me of Diogenies looking for one honest man as the stroy goes–and she continues to make friends, but I am not sure about commensurate political force. The radical muslims only understand an UZI to their head– what of the radical obama communists? How would they be made to understand they have to leave. Isn’t the persistance of all the forces mustered to fight the eligibilty a clear indication of guilt and yet orly and berg is still in there, want to prove these facst in courts of law that don’t want to hear it all legalize language put aside–just a simple fact, they don’t want to face the societal disruption that will attend his removal. That he is a liar and traitor does not seem to matter to those that are supposed to watch out for us. Are they? Do we have to beg for justice OR SHOULD DE DEMAND IT??!! OR ELSE!!!!!!

    That is where the seeds of rebellion and insurrection are sown. in protracted discontent among the avergae people–they are the most dangerous when stirred-NOT theradicals who would be radical in any of their reactions at any time.
    Reasonable people seek a reasonable solution, not juidical spittle and stonewalling– that simply says that they are NOT honest, and that we have a den of thieves running things in a rusty and tattered barrel filled with rotten apples.

    Is change always orderly—in this situation I sense it will not be that way.

    The other question is one of solid base and the strength to effect change–I think if judge Carter fails orly, that should be the clarion call to march on washington and throw this poiece of dog shit out with his wife and sycophants. I think is the alleged independent Marine Judge Carter knuckles under and goes along to get along in good ole boy fashion deespite his allegedly independnet postures then Orly should take a long rest and reflect on her next moves.

    This country has allowed itself to be internally and externally corrupted through in through. It is like a huge casino run by the mafia. The attorny general is another piece of rascist dog shit along with obama and michel and this new 60% reversed barrio bitch rascist sotomeyer.

    The press and media can give lessons to stalinist pravda and izvestia–the media bastards that attack orly on msnbc like attack dogs should be arrested becsuse they are complicit in perpetuating the Obama criminality. BUT, as righteous as the american people can be and as encouraging as they are to you and Keyes, both of you, while basking in the w f their nice words admiration try at first gently and then in bearly subdued admonishment to get these peole to walk a stronger path of commitment in moiney and time. Most 99% want to or have to play it safe and thus are in the exigencies of the present situation useless–nice words are sweet, but they are only words, NOT money, NOT action, NOT activist particiaption thats why orly has reader and then reader and PATRIOTS–she is nothing if not apractical soul.

    I am not entirely sure that the military–segments of to put it more properly, are prepared to take orders from Obama. Will he be a flash in the pan–? It is overheating the economy and the society with his rabid swift moves and these exec orders. How do you stop him? Vote him out in 2012? Whats going to left by then?

    Are we going to have a bastille day? Are the madam defarges buying knitting needles and yarn? Is this nation finally going to realize the huge massive mistake it made in putting in thuis fifth columnist COMMIE in office as POTUS–he is a disgrace to that office and along with him God knows what portion of the judicary top to bottom and is there a point in even mentioning the Congress CASINO.

    I want to say hang in their Orly, but if you keep getting stornwalled and your adherants keep applauding- remind tham of the old vaudeville crack: Don’t appluad, just throw money.

    Best to you
    MP

14. Syd B.
    August 12th, 2009 @ 9:11 am

    Orly, I’m no lawyer but keeping a court ruling sealed simply makes no sense to me. Is there legal reasoning for such a tactic? Has this ever happened before in any other case at any level of the justice system other than the SCOTUS, where I understand they are under no obligation to provide the reasoning behind their decisions. Again, the very thought is outlandish.

15. Bruno Erico
    August 12th, 2009 @ 9:23 am

    Dr. Orly,

    May GOD bless you!

    Americans! Support Dr. Orly…. she is our last hope of Freedom and Democracy…. political parties in US is a buch of hoodlooms!

16. NewEnglandPatriot
    August 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 am

    I wondered how he refused to hear the case so quickly. I did not know that he put his decision under seal. That is totally illegal. Can Judge Lazarra be sued directly for doing this?

17. Michelle
    August 12th, 2009 @ 10:21 am

    Dear Dr. Orly- Years ago when I lived in Illinois I worked with a girl, her name was Lucy Schenk. After this scandal came out, we found out her husband was one of the lawyers (FBI-infiltration) that worked on this case. The last time I spoke with Lucy (she worked at a different office) they were off to Switzerland. My guess at that time was for the FBI to infiltrate the overseas banks. That is only a guess. Lucy could not tell anyone about anything. Our boss used to tease her about her husband never being at home, when it was over we all understood why. Anyway I hope that there is something in this case that can help you open the doors to what you are trying to do now. It was a shock to see how many corrupt judges were in the system. I assuming Lucy and her husband had the same last name. Her husband is probably retired from the FBI by now, but I don’t know. I hope any of this helps. God Bless you Orly, know that we are with you.
    Operation Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago region).
    The operation took place in the 1980s. Ninety-two people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a member of the Illinois Legislature.
    Operation Greylord was named after the wigs worn by judges in Britain.
    First Assistant United States Attorney Candace J. Fabri led many of the prosecutions.

18. Xmen
    August 12th, 2009 @ 10:21 am

    How can they do this?

19. Lynn Lambert
    August 12th, 2009 @ 10:24 am

    Perhaps we need to contact Judge Lazarra’s office and let him know that we are following this case and we want to know why he has sealed his orders. Do I expect him to un-seal the orders, no! But, maybe he needs to be aware that there are thousands of us who are curious to know why he would go so far as to seal a document that should not be sealed! What is he trying to hide?

    ~Lynnl

    Contact for Judge Lazarra ~
    TEL: 813-301-5350
    FAX: 813-301-5359

    Sandra Hartman
    Judicial Assistant
    813-301-5350

20. Alex
    August 12th, 2009 @ 11:53 am

    We’re with you, Dr. Taitz, 100%! You are such an inspiration to me, as a woman. You show us how to be brave, brilliant, and strong! I nominate you for America’s new superhero, Super Eligibility Woman! Or maybe Countess Constitutionality! At any rate, you’re an American hero!

21. Rosey
    August 12th, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

    This is typical of liberal activist Judges who feel they can set public policy. This very Judge (Richard A. Lazarra) was in the news in 2003 for his decision to deny the parents attempt at blocking the court ordered removal of the feeding tube that was keeping Terri Schiavo alive. He is a dispicable human being that has done more than his own share of damage to this great country.

22. AdrianInFlorida
    August 12th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

    The orders are not sealed, Dr. Taitz. A quick check at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-flmdce/case_no-8:2009cv01382/case_id-229413/

    Shows the full text of the Judges decision.

    Full docket text for document 10:
    ENDORSED ORDER denying [8] Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

    Full docket text for document 11:
    ENDORSED ORDER denying as frivolous and wholly without merit [9] Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and [9]Motion for Rehearing re: [6] Order on Motion for Reconsideration of [3] Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

    He found the Plaintiff’s case frivolous and wholly without merit, that isn’t sealing his decidion, that is throwing the Plaintiff out on his ear, IMO.

23. provb1022
    August 12th, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

    Is this the only case with maj cook?

24. NavyMom
    August 12th, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

    Don’t judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution? If so and in this, the greatest Constitutional crisis we’ve ever encountered, isn’t it beyond sad that few, if any, judges are willing to rule on finding the truth that is so crucial to the survival of the freedoms and liberties in our great country? I always believed that the judges were protectors and defenders of our Constitutional rights….with the Supreme Court being the highest of all, just below God. Has corruption entered into our justice system too, or are our judges being threatened, as others have been, by this administration? It doesn’t seem that the judges’ oath means much if they won’t uphold it. It also makes a mockery of their title “Your Honor” doesn’t it? It also proves that some people really are Above the Law, something I never thought I’d see in this country. It’s a very sad time I’m afraid.

25. Harry H
    August 12th, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

    Leo Donofrio suggests today (August 12) on his site at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com that you might try filing in D.C. under a different legal category. Just a thought.

    I for one greatly admire you and Major Cook for challenging Obama’s unlawful authority, and I wish that other military people–especially the Joint Chiefs of Staff–would follow his courageous example.

    If the Joint Chiefs would simply request that Obama establish as a fact that he is a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution, this could all be over quickly and relatively easily.

    If the courts and Congress refuse to hear our legitimate grievances against Obama, we the people have the right to reconstitute our government so that our grievances are given a fair and full hearing.

26. someguy
    August 12th, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

    wow, this isn’t america anymore. it ceased being america, when this happenned. this has nothing to do with naything else, they have to show this. like he has to show his brith certificate. only an american can be president. i don’t know what to do here, but ask every military man to get out of the army, that’s the only thing they can do. they want to use them, use the court case, of him being foreign or them dropping the orders, and get out. tell him we will take back our country, there is no reason for that, that is something we have to know about it’s our rights. that was a court case of them doing actions against citizens who refuse to follow that foreing orders. people kept saying, oh your a citizen, well an army guy is a citizen. they cannot break citizens rights. that’s ok for them people. well you get your citizens who like that, and have your communist bullcrap. there using the law, abusing it and force to keep someone who is foreign, from showing a birth certificate.

27. Phil O.
    August 13th, 2009 @ 2:20 am

    Dear Orly:…Hello. Let me make a suggestion:…1) can the governor of Florida intervene on behalf of Major Cook? 2) Can he either overrule this judge? 3) or have another judge installed, like a patriotic, Christian, military judge? Any judge who would do this is treasonous! So keep track of whomever pulls this kind of stunt and make a point of letting the people of that State of Florida know what this judge has done! And I will also check on the newspaper in the area and see if I can send a copy of the judgement you listed here to that paper to print? Also:…4) Can you check with any of the military types you represent to see if they know any military judges in Florida, to see if this can be refiled with that judge? And have that judge get some kind of injunction(?) or whatever and have that sealed judgement opened? Find out what the law is about (WHERE) this REALLY has to be filed? Can this be any where? Like back in California with that military judge? Or was that military judge in Ga.? Obama is clearly ILLEGAL…so no one should have to do a damned thing he says! Everyone in the Congress should just get up and leave…and not come back until this Obama produces his REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE! If he can’t, then, he should be escourted out of the White House with the military at his side!!! This crap with the treason everywhere has gone on long enough! With that birth certificate, Orly, I will get in touch with you, shortly. Your friend, Phil O.

28. Phil O.
    August 13th, 2009 @ 2:40 am

    Dear Orly:…1) Try to find a judge in Ga. that will hear the case? 2) No one should have to go clear to Florida to do this? 3) If need be, file with the state supreme court in Ga.? 4) File with the U.S. Supreme court? 5) Since Obama is cleary ILLEGAL and doesn’t wan to show his papers, then, we should all just tell the freakin’ legal system (in the case of Obama and Major Cook) to take a flying screw at the moon! He is ILLEGAL and that means no one should have to follow any of his orders! And every member of Congress should just get out of town and stay out…until this Treasonous Man produces his REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE! And if he can’t, then, all of his laws he’s signed and those that he is trying to get Congress to enact, will be null and void! This man is a walking Felony Factory! Do any of the military people you represent, have any contacts in the field of law, in Ga.? or any other state besides California? Check on that. And I am going to find some further info that I will send to you, shortly. Thank you for being the most PATRIOTIC AMERICAN I’VE COME ACROSS IN MY 65 YEARS OF LIFE! And I’m damned tired of seeing this Treason continue! And…PLEASE…DO NOT QUIT!!!!! Your friend, Phil O.

29. Phil O.
    August 13th, 2009 @ 4:14 am

    Dear Orly:…and am wondering if the time is coming to make contact with THE MAN???

    Take care and I’m doing some things here at my end, to be of help to you and all of us!
    Please keep the faith…pray…! And…PLEASE…DO NOT QUIT!!!!!

    Your friend, Phil O.

• Search for:
• Tweet

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy

• Evidence on Barack Obama

  Obama File with Exhibits
  Affidavit of Paul Irey
  Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
  Obama file Exhibits 9-13
  Obama file Exhibits 14-21
  Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
  Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and Congress

• RSS Feed: Subscribe for Free RSS Feed

  

• ---

  PETITION TO CONGRESS:
  Ban importation of 200,000 Syrian migrants into the US

  

  ---

• Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day

  

• URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS

• OrlyTaitzEsq.com

  • Untitled

• TAITZ REPORT

  Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE
• 

• Official Facebook

  
  

• Recent Posts

  • (no title)

• 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

  
  

• April 2024

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  1	2	3	4	5	6	7
  8	9	10	11	12	13	14
  15	16	17	18	19	20	21
  22	23	24	25	26	27	28
  29	30

• Pages

  • #409755 (no title)
  • …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
  • …Grinols Subpoenas
  • ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
  • .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
  • 1. Judd v Obama
  • 2. Farrar v Obama
  • 3. Taitz v Sebelius
  • 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
  • 5. Taitz v Astrue
  • 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
  • 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
  • Videos
  • Video: Orly before NH Election Committee