OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi



Filed on Friday, November 9 in Federal Court in MS

Posted on | November 12, 2012 | 6 Comments

MS cover page with filed stamp 11.09.2012 opposition

ms cover page motion for evidentiary hearing

MS motion for emergency evidentiary hearing

 

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

PRO SE PLAINTIFF IN MS

 

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al                               )     CASE 12-CV-280

v                                                                      )   HON. HENRY WINGATE

Democratic Party of Mississippi et al            )    PRESIDING

 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY DEFENDANTS OBAMA, PELOSI, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, ASTRUE

1. Complaint is sufficient under FRCP Rule 8

2. Complaint is sufficient under Iqbal v Ashcroft or Bell Atlantic. In the alternative, since the complaint was  filed in the state court and removed to the Federal court by the defendants, state court complaint did not have to be pled compliant with high standard   of the   Federal court pleading and in case the court finds that the pleadings did not meet the heightened standard of the federal court, Plaintiffs should be given a leave of court to file an amended complaint, which is pled more fully.

3.  Standing and right to discovery is Res judicata/ or barred under collateral estoppel  in relation to defendant Obama. Standing   was estblished

Rule 8 Plaintiff adopts by reference all facts and argument provided by the Plaintiff in Opposition to JOP by secretary of State and Democratic Party of Mississippi

4. Plaintiffs have Standing under Res Judicata/collateral Estoppel against Defendant Barack Obama.

Shortly prior to filling the case at hand in the state court in Mississippi, Obama was a defendant in a similar case in the state of Georgia. Named Plaintiffs, candidates for President, Laura Roth, Thomas MacLeran and Leah Lax were plaintiffs in a case Farrar, MacLeran, Judy, Lax, Roth v Obama OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136060-MALIHI, presided over by the Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court of the State of Georgia. Defendant Obama by and through his attorney filed a similar motion to dismiss and a Pre-trial proposed order with similar arguments. Motion to dismiss was denied and Obama was ordered to appear at trial. Taitz filed subpoenas for witness appearances and production of documents. Obama by and through his attorney filed a motion to quash subpoenas. Taitz filed an opposition to motion to quash (Exhibit 1). Judge Malihi ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and Obama was ordered to comply with subpoenas and produce documents.(Exhibit 2)  Obama, by and through his attorney on the  night before trial filed a letter with    the Secretary of State of Georgia seeking to take the case and trial from the presiding judge. (Exhibit 3) Secretary of   State of Georgia denied the demand (Exhibit 4 letter from the Secretary of State of Georgia to Michael Jablonski, attorney for Obama). At trial the court found that the evidence submitted was not convincing enough to remove Obama from the ballot in Georgia. Even though on January 26, 2012  there was not enough evidence, the standing of the plaintiffs was established, the right to issue subpoenas was established and the subpoenas were deemed to be proper.

After trial in Georgia more evidence became available, specifically Sheriff Joseph Arpaio   of Maricopa county Arizona issued an affidavit and conducted a number of press conferences, where he announced results of his 6 month investigations and confirmed evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service certificate and Social Security card. Whether this new evidence is sufficient, is to be decided at trial or at the minimum    after the discovery is conducted. However, the standing  was established

Defense in their pleadings disproven their own assertions that the case was filed too late.

In the motion to dismiss on the pleadings  filed by Democratic party, Defendants argued that until a candidate is nominated by the party at the nominating convention, challenges against him are premature, not right. Based on such assertion, defendants are precluded to claim that the case at hand was filed too late.  Based on their own assertion this case is ripe now, after the nomination.

If the court finds that no sufficient fact were pled Impossibility excuses such possible lack of facts due to the facts that the defendants are the custodians of the records in the center of controversy and they refused to comply with the Federal and State subpoenas issued in prior cases and refused to provide necessary documents ad evidence. As such, due to impossibility to provide additional factual evidence without discovery, subpoenas and court order to compel

 

SEC. 23-15-951. Filing of petition; issuance of summons; trial by, and verdict of, jury; assumption of office.

Except as otherwise provided by Section 23-15-955 or 23-15-961, a person desiring to contest the election of another person returned as elected to any office within any county, may, within twenty (20) days after the election, file a petition in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, setting forth the grounds upon which the election is contested; and the clerk shall thereupon issue a summons to the party whose election is contested, returnable to the next term of the court, which summons shall be served as in other cases; and the court shall, at the first term, cause an issue to be made up and tried by a jury, and the verdict of the jury shall find the person having the greatest number of legal votes at the election. If the jury shall find against the person returned elected, the clerk shall issue a certificate thereof; and the person in whose favor the jury shall find shall be commissioned by the Governor, and shall qualify and enter upon the duties of his office. Each party shall be allowed ten (10) peremptory challenges, and new trials shall be granted and costs awarded as in other cases. In case the election of district attorney or other state district election be contested, the petition may be filed in any county of the district or in any county of an adjoining district within twenty (20) days after the election, and like proceedings shall be had thereon as in the case of county officers, and the person found to be entitled to the office shall qualify as required by law and enter upon the duties of his office.

Conclusion

1. Pleadings are sufficient under FRCP Rule 8 to proceed to discovery.

2. Taking into consideration the fact that the cases revolves around forgery of the Identification papers of the sitting President of the United States with the full strength of financial and logistical resources of the   U.S. government at his resources and due to massive stonewalling, Plaintiffs met their initial burden of apprising of the complaint and recovery sought and Notion of Equal Protection requires the court to allow Plaintiffs to conduct discovery in order to provide more details for the complaint

3. The court should not reward defendants, who are custodians of records in the center of controversy, for
stonewalling and refusing to provide requested records.

 

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

PRO SE PLAINTIFF IN MS

 

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al                               )     CASE 12-CV-280

v                                                                      )   HON. HENRY WINGATE

Democratic Party of Mississippi et al            )    PRESIDING

 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD

MOTION/REQUEST FOR AN EMERGENCY EVIDENTIARY HEARING

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

1. On October 22 a trial was conducted in the state of Indiana on the issue of Declaratory Relief, plaintiffs seeking  candidate Obama pronounced not eligible for the U.S. Presidency due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 Taitz, Swihart, Kern, Kessler, Weyl, Ripley v Elections commission, Secretary of State. No.: 49D14-1203-MI- 012046

The official transcript is not ready yet, as such Taitz forwards to this court the audio tape of trial with sworn testimony of witnesses.  Exhibit 1.

Of great importance is testimony of Paul Irey, former employee of NSA (National Security agency) with top clearance, who testified that he has 57 years of extensive experience in typesetting, typing and computer graphics programs. Irey testified that Obama’s alleged birth certificate is a forgery. Exhibits presented by Irey were accepted into evidence over the objections by the defense.

Irey testified that   based on his 57 years of experience it is impossible to have a typewritten birth certificate with letters of different fonts, sizes, with different spaces between letters and with a white halo around words. Defense did not have any evidence in rebuttal.

2. Another witness, Felicito Papa, who holds a degree in Information Technology from the Indiana Institute of Technology, testified that multiple layers in Obama’s birth certificate were evident due to the fact that Adobe Illustrator program was used to create it. Papa testified that Obama’s birth certificate cannot be genuine, that it is a forgery, due to the fact that Adobe Illustrator was created only about 10 years ago, it did not exist 51 years ago when Obama was born. Papa’s exhibits were accepted into evidence over stringent opposition of the Defense. Defense did not have any witnesses or any exhibits in rebuttal.

3. Unexpectedly, after trial Presiding judge decided to retroactively vacate trial for an unrelated reason, mainly because the transcript of the elections challenge by the Election Commission was not submitted within 30 days as required by the Indiana law. A motion for reconsideration is expected to be filed within allowed 30 days. Regardless of the current litigation posture in Indiana, official audiotape is on file,   is provided herein, as it represents extremely important irrefuted evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate, which is at the center of this case at hand.

4. Plaintiff Taitz received an affidavit from Henry Wayland Blake, PhD. Exhibit 2 herein Mr. Blake has followed the cases of Barack Obama’s eligibility and reviewed the documents submitted to this court by Sam Begley and Scott J. Tepper, Attorneys for Defendants Democratic Party of Mississippi, who also serve as attorneys for Defendants Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, “Obama for America” and  Michael Astrue. Documents reviewed are listed below:

 

05/04/2012   15 MOTfON for Judgment on the Pleadings by Democrat Party of Mississippi

 

(Attachments: # I Exhibit  LFBC from  White House, # 2 Exhibit  COLB  from Campaign,# 3 Exhibit  DOH  Verification re White House BC, # 4 Exhibit  Hawaii Gov April 27 2011 News Release, # 5 Exhibit DOH  White House Con·espondence,

# 6 Exhibit DOH 08-93 News Release,# 7 Exhibit DOH 09-063 News Release,#

 

8 Exhibit CDC Report reBirth  Certificate History)(Begley, Samuel) (Entered:

 

 

05104120 12) [.pdf (page 8)]

 

 

and

 

06/06/2012  35  MOTTON to Supplement Counsel  for M.DEC’s Response 30 in Opposition  to

 

PlaintiffTaitz’s Motion for Sanctions 25 re 30 Response to Motion,  by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Attachments:# 1  Exhibit MDEC Counsel  Request  to HI DOH for Ver ification of Prcsident Obamas  Hawaiian  Birth Cert, # 2 Exhibit Hawaii DOH  Verification  of President Obamas  Hawaiian Birth – Issued May 31

 

2012)(Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 06/06/2012) [.pdf (page 11)]

 

 

see also court document

 

 

1051324013l.pdf 05/26/2012  Re:  Request  for Verification of Vital   Records Pursuant to Hawai’ i. Rev. Stat.  § 338-14.3 and 338-1 8(g)(4)  (.pdf(page4)]

 

According to Mr. Blake an image of Obama’s birth certificate was significantly altered, when it was sent by Attorney Scott Tepper to defendants Fuddy and Onaka.

significant alterations are listed below

V.        I found that the alterations to the (page 8) image copy to create the (page 4/11) image

copy are extensive as follows:

 

1.        A second Case Label  was added

 

2.         The (page 8) image was flattened, rasterized and green color was added

 

3.         The color of all text was changed from near-Black to Black-Green

 

4.         Numerous form li nes were repaired or replaced entirely

 

5.         The basket-weave  background was softened and touched up

 

6.         Specific words were made selectable by mouse and cu rsor in Adobe Reader

 

7.         Hidden editing was appl ied (see 8.- 11. below):

 

8.         Ten Line Objects were added

 

9.         Two Green Color objects were added

 

l 0.       Two Broad-line Strikeou ts were applied, one to the words “Kapiolani Matern ity &Gynecological”, and the other to the word “August”

11.       Seven  Rectangular Bl ack Redaction Box Objects  w re added  which altogether cover nearly all of the typed text

VI.       The remaining  typed, stamped  (or form) words left unstruck  or unredacted and appearing on the hidden image  of (page4111) are:

1 .         Both Case Labels

2.          State  of Hawaii          Certificate of Live Birth          Department of Health

3.        61 10641 (fi le number  151 is redacted)

4.          Barack  Hussein  Obama,  II (“X”  in single-birth box)

5.         Honolulu (in two places)

6.         6085 Kalai anaole Highway

7.          Labels for ten form-boxes

8.          State Registrar’s date and signature stamps

VIJ.      Words which can be selected on (page 4/1 1) by mouse and cursor  in Adobe Reader  are:

1.         Both Case Labels

2.         State of Hawaii            Certificate of Live Birth         Department of Health

2.          61 l 0641  (File number  151 is non-selectable)

3.          Barack Hussein Obama,

4.         Honolulu

5.         Kapiolani  Maternity & Gynecological Hospital

6.         6085 Kalanianaole

7.         Hussein Obama

8.          University

9.          State Registrar’s date and signature stamps.

Blake also forwarded to Taitz screen shots, showing how  those alterations were done and explanations. Shortly after the affidavit by Blake was made public by Taitz, Tepper e-mailed Taitz and other plaintiffs a proposed settlement offer, where he wanted Taitz not to make any “defamatory remarks” about defendants and their attorneys and pay $25,000 attorneys fees to Attorney Begley or otherwise defendants will go after Plaintiffs seeking a much higher amount. Considering the fact that neither Taitz nor any of the Plaintiffs have stated anything defamatory, that all of their statements were  true statements based on sworn affidavits and neither have done anything frivolous to warrant any award of fees, Taitz believes that this “offer” was a form of intimidation, particularly an intimidation of co-plaintiffs and desire to silence Taitz and co-plaintiffs  regarding modifications in the image of the alleged birth certificate, which was sent by Tepper to the director of Health Loretta Fuddy. Further Tepper and Begley engaged in a campaign of harassment and intimidation, appeared on the radio, specifically RCR blogtalk radio, where they threatened that they will be going after the house of Taitz. This was done with a clear desire to intimidate and harass not only Taitz, but her whole family, her husband and her 3 children.

4. This comes on the heels of a motion for sanctions which was filed by Taitz against Tepper and Begley after they filed a motion for judicial Notice regarding the alleged birth certificate, even though Judicial notice can be issued only regarding the matter which is not subject to dispute. When Tepper and Begley sought such judicial notice they had in front of them multiple affidavits showing the alleged birth certificate to be a forgery.

5. After a motion for sanctions Tepper requested a verification of the alleged Obama’s birth certificate from defendant and Director of Health of the state of Hawaii Loretta Fuddy. Such request for verification appear to be a discovery in this case, which was conducted in violation of a stay of discovery  issued by your Honor. Moreover, since Fuddy and Onaka are defendants herein, their confirmation cannot be treated as unbiased.  Request from Tepper to Fuddy contained  an image of birth certificate which according to Henry Wayland Blake PhD contained significant alterations to the original birth certificate. Additionally, the wording of the verification was intentionally misleading and did not contain  usual language where one is seeking verification that the document in question is a true and correct copy of the original birth certificate on file. He never asked if it was a true and accurate copy which is the language any competent lawyer asking to corroborate a document would use – unless he knew or suspected it wasn’t a true and accurate copy. The wiggle room that question leaves is the lack of information in a field. If the filed for indication of a late filing ( which might mean an out of state birth ) were blank on the Whitehouse copy ( which it is ) , but had an entry in the DOH copy, the way the question was phrased- the DOH would say the information on the 2 forms matched because since there was NO INFORMATION in the field on the WH copy, that field is skipped and not compared to the field in the DOH copy. The state of Hawaii has statutes 338-5 and 338-6 which allow for late birth certificates and birth certificate received as a replacement when the birth certificate is lost or destroyed or amended.

6. Tepper and his local co-counsel proceeded to file their verification and the attached affidavit with this court.

They also stated in their pleadings

“I 0. To  be  clear,  MD EC  Counsel   had  no  doubts  regarding  the  veracity  of  the  LFBC  posted  at whitehouse.gov  when  it  submitted   a  copy  of  the  document   with  i ts  JOP  Motion  [ECF  No.  15- I].” Document 35 herein

This statement was clearly yet another attempt to mislead the court, as when Begley and Tepper filed their motion for judicial notice, they had in front of them multiple sworn affidavits attesting to the fact that this is a computer generated  forgery and more importantly they had a videotape of sworn affidavits of witnesses, including Senior deportation officer John Sampson as well as a whole one hour press conference by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, where Arpaio and his investigator Mike Zullo have demonstrated in great detail how this forgery was created, how a stamp of the Registrar and the date stamp were imported from different documents.

7. Further on during the motion hearing in this court Tepper verbally attacked Taitz and accused he of “bald face misstatement”, stating that he did not seek a judicial notice of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

In response Taitz read from Tepper’s own pleadings (page 73 of the motion hearing transcript)

73

 

1       The plaintiffs’ claim that President Obama is ineligible

 

2   because of purportedly invalid identification papers is

 

3   frivolous.  The plaintiffs have failed to even claim or provide

 

4   any factual allegations to support such a claim that the

 

5   president was not born in the United States.

6       Moreover, the court should take judicial notice of the fact

 

7   that the State of Hawaii has fully verified that President

 

8   Obama was born in Hawaii.

Exhibit 3  P1 and pages 71-73 of the certified transcript of September 24 hearing before this court.

Due to the fact that Mr. Obama was recently re-elected for 4 more years and due to evidence of forgery in alleged copies of Mr. Obama’s identification records and a pattern of obfuscation of any and all original   records and due to the new evidence submitted herein,

plaintiff  Taitz seeks an emergency evidentiary hearing and production by   defendants Onaka and Fuddy of the original birth certificate and original microfilm for expert examination, as well as production by defendant Astrue of the original application to the Connecticut Social Security number  xxx-xx-4425, so it can be done prior to certification of Obama’s electoral votes by the electoral college.

Based on Chambers v Nasco 501 U.S. 32 (1991) this court has to use its inherent power and conduct investigation of fraud committed by the Defendants in covering up Obama’s forged IDs as well as possible fraud committed by the defendants’ attorneys. Moreover, aiding and abetting a foreign national in usurping the U.S. Presidency and the position of Commander in Chief while using forged IDs may be construed as engaging in treason and in Misprission of Felonies under 18U.S.§4, which makes it even more urgent for this court to conduct an independent investigation at the earliest convenience.

 

Such relief   is justified and it is in public policy, as it will assure proper resolution of the issue of forgery in the IDs of a U.S. President.

CONCLUSION

This court should conduct an emergency evidentiary hearing in regards to forgery in the Barack Obama’s IDs  and in conjunction to a motion for sanctions by the Plaintiffs against attorneys Tepper and Begley.

/S/ ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

11.08.2012

DECLARATION OF ORLY TAITZ

1. Audio CD attached herein is a true and correct copy of the Audio CD given to her after trial in Taitz et al elections commission et al  No.: 49D14-1203-MI- 012046

2. Affidavit of Henry Blake is a true and correct copy of such affidavit received by me

/s/ Orly Taitz

11.08.2012

cc Congressman Gregg Harper (R-MS)

Chairman

United State House Administration Subcommittee on Election

307 House Office Building

Washington DC 20515

ph 202-225-5031

fax 202-225-5797

ccGregg Harper, Mississippi, Chairman

Aaron Shock, Illinois

Rich Nugent, Florida

Todd Rokita, Indiana

Bob Brady, Pennsylvania, Ranking Member

Charlie Gonzalez, Texas

cc Congressman Darrell Issa

Chairman

House Oversight Committee

2347 Rayburn House Building

Washington DC, 20515

 

cc Congressman Mike Rogers

Chairman

House Intelligence Committee

133 Cannon House Office building

Washington DC 20515

 

cc Congressman Sam Johnson

Chairman

House Subcommittee on Social Security

House Ways and Means Committee

2929 N Central Expy, 240

Richardson, TX 75080

 

cc Congressman Dana Rohrbacher

Chairman

House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations’

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

2300 Rayburn House Building

Washington DC 20515

 

US Commission

on Civil Rights

624 Ninth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20425 C

 

 

Public Integrity Section

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

 

Inter -American Commission on Human Rights

1889 F Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C., 20006 U.S.A..

Tel.: 202-458-6002,     202-458-6002. Fax: 202-458-3992.

 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders

The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

International Criminal bar Hague

BPI-ICB-CAPI

Head Office

Neuhuyskade 94

2596 XM The Hague

The Netherlands

Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070              0031 (70) 3268070

Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531

Email: info@bpi-icb.org

Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Regional Office – Americas / Bureau régional – Amériques / Oficina regional – Américas

137, rue St-Pierre

Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5

Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757              001 (514) 289-8757

Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590

Email: admin@bpi-icb.org

Website: www.bpi-icb.org

 

Laura Vericat Figarola

BPI-ICB-CAPI

Secretaria Barcelona

laura_bpi@icab.es

Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª

08029 Barcelona, España

tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

 

United Nations Commission for

Civil Rights Defenders

Orsolya Toth (Ms)

Human Rights Officer

Civil and Political Rights Section

Special Procedures Division

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

tel: + 41 22 917 91 51

email: ototh@ohchr.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lila Dubert attest that I served all parties in the attached distribution list with foregoing pleadings on the 11.08.2012

/s/ Lila Dubert

Taitz et al v.   Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson
Case in other court: Circuit Court of     Hinds County, Ms, 251-12-00107 CIV

Cause: 18:1962   Racketeering (RICO) ActDate Filed: 04/24/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Plaintiff
Dr. Orly Taitz
Esq.

represented by

Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Ste. 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949-683-5411
Email: Orly.Taitz@gmail.com
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Brian Fedorka

represented by

Brian Fedorka
812 Shiloh Dr.
Columbus, Ms 39702
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Laurie Roth

represented by

Laurie Roth
15510 E. Laurel Rd
Elk, WA 99009
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Tom MacLeran

represented by

Tom MacLeran
1026 Deer Ridge RD
Kingston Springs, TN 37082
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Leah Lax

represented by

Leah Lax
350 Market Str.
Highspire, PA 17034
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Democrat Party of   Mississippi

represented by

Samuel L. Begley
BEGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC
P. O. Box 287
Jackson, MS 39205
601/969-5545
Fax: 601/969-5547
Email: sbegley1@bellsouth.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott J. Tepper – PHV
GARFIELD & TEPPER
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2326
310/277-1981
Fax: 310/277-1980
Email: scottjtepper@msn.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Secretary of State of   Mississippi

represented by

Harold Edward Pizzetta   , III
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205-0220
601/359-3680
Email: hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Justin L. Matheny
MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
P. O. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205-0220
601-359-3825
Fax: 601-359-2003
Email: jmath@ago.state.ms.us
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Barak Hussein Obama

represented by

Samuel L. Begley
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Scott J. Tepper – PHV
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Obama for America

represented by

Samuel L. Begley
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Scott J. Tepper – PHV
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Nanci Pelosi

represented by

Samuel L. Begley
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Scott J. Tepper – PHV
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Dr. Alvin Onaka

represented by

Walter W. Dukes
DUKES, DUKES, KEATING & FANECA, PA – Gulfport
P.O. Drawer W (39502)
2909 13th Street, 6th Floor
Gulfport, MS 39501
(228) 868-1111
Email: walter@ddkf.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Loretta Fuddy

represented by

Walter W. Dukes
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED   Defendant   Michael Astrue     Defendant

 

 

Comments

6 Responses to “Filed on Friday, November 9 in Federal Court in MS”

  1. MainePatriot
    November 12th, 2012 @ 8:36 am

    Both are the same document.

  2. Natalie Bright
    November 12th, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

    Hey Orly,

    Why don’t you just go to the Hawaii Department of Health and pay the $10 and get your own copy?

  3. Veritas
    November 12th, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

    This Election may still be a victory for the Constitution and Liberty if the Law is followed and patriots are unafraid. From DRUDGE tonight:
    ——

    Vet flies flag upside down for Veteran’s Day…

    Growing protest of president’s re-election…

    UPDATE: White House deluged with petitions for secession…

    TEXAS GETS REQUIRED 25K SIGNATURES…

  4. Reetekcar
    November 12th, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

    Where is your response to the motion for summary judgement?

  5. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 12th, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

    there is no motion for summary judgment. there was a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, I responded long time ago

  6. slcraig
    November 14th, 2012 @ 5:34 am

    Orly, I understand your willingness to play in their sand-box and trying to hold them to the “sand-box rules”.

    But they built the sand-box to keep the kids busy while they push their agenda forward.

    There is no uniformly acknowledged legal, (enforceable), definition of the Constitutional term of words natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    Federal and State election laws are wholly insufficient to bar a person from political activities when they have been deemed admissible by the preferred political parties to the extent that even a non-person is acceptable, (Mickey Mouse)

    S. THOMAS ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE found in a Ruling on a Motion at hand;

    ” … Based on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are exactly of the kind which “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” As one of the elements of their claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs must show that
    Defendants somehow misrepresented a material fact.

    It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law.

    It is true that viewed from one perspective, Plaintiffs’ suit is about state elections and the manner in which a state political party selects its nominee for federal office and then takes steps to have the nominee’s name appear on the state-wide ballot for a general election. When cast in this light, it
    could be argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are peculiarly a matter of state law.

    Nevertheless, the primary basis for Plaintiffs’ state-law claims is the allegation that President Obama is not a natural born
    citizen of the United States of America, as the Supreme Court has defined the term, and therefore not qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs concede as much and actually allege in their First Amended Complaint that President Obama cannot be considered a natural born citizen based on a definition of “natural born citizen” the United States Supreme Court announced over one hundred and thirty-five years ago in Minor v. Happersett.

    Plaintiffs’ ultimate success in proving Defendants liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation turns then on Plaintiffs’ ability to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as federal law defines that concept.

    Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.”

    Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc TN Western District

    Note the passage;

    ” … “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. …”

    The Federal Laws established in 1790 and 1795 with the Congressional Acts ” to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization”, define the term of words and set out the requisite circumstances by which the form of Citizenship is perpetuated, in words that say so and in words that then require it.

    I filed a Civil Rights complaint on 11/07 asserting the certainty of the Federal definition (of circumstances) and will publish the Complaint once the Defendant, The United States, responds.

Leave a Reply