OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

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

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


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





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

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

-- Thomas Jefferson

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

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


Video: Orly before NH Election Committee

Posted on | November 19, 2011 | 23 Comments

Full one hour video of my testimony before NH Election Committee. Thank you Mr. Tim for your help.

Comments

23 Responses to “Video: Orly before NH Election Committee”

  1. Freedom First
    November 19th, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

    Great job Dr. Taitz. Americans are awakening to the full depths of corruption that we are facing. Millions won’t rest until justice is served.. Both on Mr.Obama and all those who have been trusted to protect and defend our Constitution and are derelict in their duty or worse, complicit in the biggest crime ever committed against this great Republic. God Bless you and God Bless America!

  2. Birdy
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

    The State of New Hampshire officials, like the officials of other states, are taking the stance that they require absolute proof that a person is not eligible for an office before they will withhold their name from the ballot as a candidate. They require something like a court ruling or a birth certificate to be provided to them to show the ineligibility. They will not do any investigation of their own to determine if an applicant is eligible.

    I wonder if they have always applied this standard to all applicants in the past, or if they have denied some applicants a place on the ballot with a lower standard of evidence or if they have sometimes done their own investigation of an applicant’s credentials.

    I wonder if Roger Calero filled out the application and paid the fee to get on the ballot in New Hampshire in 2008. I wonder how they treated him. Did they do their own investigation of Calero and deny him a place on the ballot while allowing Obama to be on the ballot without investigation?

  3. kelley
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

    Orly, you presented a fabulous case against why Bari, Barry, soberka, Harrison J. Bounel should not be put on the NH ballot. What idiots these men and women on the ballot commission are. The chairman of the commission tried to keep you from exposing the Obama family history of obtaining SS numbers that do not belong to them. And every question he asked you at the end of your presentation i think shocked him like when he asked you if you had written to Columbia about the missing years of attendance by Obama and you said you had written but received no response and when he asked all the other questions, you had a rapid fire response. The point you made that in order to work in the White House as a janitor you have to go through a background check but to sit in the Oval office, no background check required. The chairman was so ill informed about everything Obama, that it begs the question, why is a man so out of touch with this Obama issue doing holding a public office. Frankly, i thought he needed to be in a nursing care facility for people out of touch with reality.

  4. kelley
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

    Orly, I contacted the State Election Board in Oklahoma City on Friday to see about submitting a ballot challenge here but was told that only candidates running for President can make a challenge of Obama/Bari’/Soberka, Harrison j. Bounel/et al

  5. kelley
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    The man taking pictures in the background during your testimony reminded me of a NAZI spy.

  6. questions
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

    This is something I read after the ruling: With the decision made, we need to go and round up anyone and everyone, fill out the proper forms and pay $1000- as long as that is followed it is legal.

    Thanks Orly, You have such courage. This story will get out, like the ripples when you throw a pebble in a pond. Most telling was the fact that they mentioned “criminal” in their response. We all know the truth. For them to rule this way makes me even more fearful of what is going on in America

    God Bless You Orly!!!!

  7. questions
    November 19th, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

    I remember this week, on Tuesday I believe, Obama made a trip to New Hampshire. I can guess what happened on his trip.

  8. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 19th, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

    yes, they denied other applications, these people are simpy lying treasonous scum, show should be gwetting a death penalty for treason

  9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 19th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

    that is why for the last 200 some years people were getting death penalty for treason, they were hung so other governmental officials would not do what these corrupt officials and corrupt judges are doing in the last 3 years

  10. Tom Cooke
    November 19th, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

    When that official stated that all you have to do is fill out a form and pay your $1000 and you challenged him he said that is all unless there is a “CHALLENGE.” DUH!!! What did he think you were doing there???? Having a fund raiser for Osluma? What a joke our system has become!

  11. Alec
    November 19th, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

    Orly, You did a superb presentation–fantastic!

  12. Sharon
    November 19th, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

    Yes, we are a nation of laws, but have we lost all common sense, so that we have to have the law dictate our every action??? Is anyone going to take personal responsibility and stop passing the buck???

    There is no specific law telling us to protest against marching into the gas chambers; should we then vote to go in? Even an ant runs when someone is trying to squish it. Have we lost our natural instincts to survive?

    Where is our moral and ethical standard that should tell us to reach beyond the law, to the evidence before us, and to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens- or to at least to be alarmed enough to investigate it further? They didn’t even seem concerned that the name on the form might not even be his real name!!!

    Great job, Lady Liberty; you are even more of a heroin to me now than before! Eventually someone in authority will have to find the courage and conviction to stand up, speak, and act as you have.

    God be with you & with all of us that seek the truth and justice!!!

  13. Mike Mason
    November 19th, 2011 @ 8:38 pm

    Orly I spent the day at WND responding to comments there and watching comments. Many are outraged that the elections board there ruled as they did. This is going viral please check my page at Facebook and watch. WND is reporting on this and supporting you. Congrats this was a win even if it seems it was not.

  14. pineal gland
    November 19th, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

    Soo,
    A challenge submitted to the Sec of State’s Election Division is then fowarded to the Attorney General’s Office. The AG then sees the evidence purporting criminal activity and then only acts as a conduit by fowarding the challenge to the Ballot Law Commission. The B.L.C. then only sees whether the declaration of candidacy (or nomination papers) as filed conform with the N.H. law.
    Thus, it can be known by these people that a candidiate is not eligible for an office and they would still let the candidate be put on the ballot if the papers are filed correctly.
    Also, if the Ballot Law Commission can only rule on whether the papers conform with the N.H. law, then why did Brad Cook ask all the questions he did about the evidence?

  15. James
    November 20th, 2011 @ 5:43 am

    Thankyou, Dr. Taitz without you this nation would be in a death spiral. Great vid, in an earlier interview with Sharon Rondeau, the Post & Email you stated, that the Comission were all Democrats. Very nice of the panel to introduce themselves on the video. Also, of interest are the applications in evidence. The question is which form was used? On, Citizen Wells their are posted several differant applications for the State of New Hampshire. They seem to change the form like diapers, from 2008 to 2010 to 2012. I hope and pray this treachery will be ended now with New Hampshire. God Bless.

  16. Jim F
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:45 am

    It is difficult to see if you won or lost but judging from the comments i t seems that you won your case in NH. Where next with the fight?

  17. Fred Dorsey
    November 20th, 2011 @ 8:00 am

    Each and every one of your efforts helps to spread the word–mostly thanks to our open Internet.
    The hapless fools on the commission are being tried in the Court of Public Opinion.
    At another time and place during the American Revolution the
    true patriots in New Hampshire would have made short work of such moral cowards hiding behind their lawyer to Rubber Stamp
    their approval of Obama.
    All they wanted to do was go through the motions and hope that you left town.
    God Bless you Orly!

  18. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 20th, 2011 @ 9:22 am

    what is your page, what’s the url?

  19. john
    November 20th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

    @JimF – assuming that Orly was trying to have President Obama removed from the 2012 NH ballot, there is no question about the fact that she lost. The President will appear on the ballot of all 50 states in 2012.

  20. Brian
    November 20th, 2011 @ 11:55 am

    A smart man is wise for his people’s advantage; a good man is wise for his country’s future.
    Brad Cook proved he’s neither.

  21. Thomas/PatriotofPast
    November 20th, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

    Mrs. Taitz, I plan on bringing a challenge here in South Dakota. First I am going to find out from the Secretary of State if STATE LAW supercedes FEDERAL LAW (The U.S. Constitution) is Federal Law isnt it?

  22. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 20th, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

    the ballots are state ballots, but the state cannot do away with the constitution and allow a thug with no proof of US citizenship to run for US President

  23. Pete in AZ
    November 21st, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

    The Secretary of state is at fault in not verifying in some manner that the statement of eligibility for whatever office is being applied for, and affirmed as accurate by the candidate, is indeed accurate. That is to say that, in this case, the candidate be truly eligible to become President of the United States. This also requires that said Secretary of state know what those requirements are.

    Nor, apparently, does the State of New Hampshire feel compelled to adhere to the pertinent requirements of the Federal Constitution regarding this subject.

    The Secretary of State is remiss, nay, negligent in her duties, and the Asst Attorney General of New Hampshire is either ignorant of the requirements, or purposefully derelict in his sworn duty to to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

    At least, may shame be visited upon all those remiss in their duties.

Leave a Reply





*