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


Notice. Important

Posted on | September 20, 2009 | 46 Comments

I am submitting tomorrow to judge Carter a response to defendant’s motion. I will be busy today and tomorrow and will not have much  time for blogging. Thank you for understanding.

I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits, when they summarily dismiss the case within a couple of days while  they are supposed to give the counsel 20 days to respond by their own rules, when they take away from the plaintiffs their right to trial by jury, when they stifle free speech and take away right to counsel by threatening $10,000 sanctions if the attorney ever brings Obama illegitimacy case again, that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly.

Comments

46 Responses to “Notice. Important”

  1. phil stone
    September 20th, 2009 @ 10:21 am

    orly – I think you should push the fact that obama claims to be british at birth by descent from his father – thus he is not a 14th amendment citizen and not NBC – does not require any discovery – use his statements against him – phil stone

  2. Nancy Sharpe
    September 20th, 2009 @ 10:37 am

    KEEP STANDING FOR AMERICA AND WE THE PEOPLE ORLY – GOD BLESS YOU – DON’T BACK DOWN – WE ARE ALL PRAYING FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY – IN CHRIST JESUS LOVE – Nancy –

  3. JB
    September 20th, 2009 @ 10:49 am

    Oh this is going to be so fun!!!!!

  4. carmen
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:01 am

    Dr. Orly, You will prevail. ON Tues. Sept. 22 O is to be sworn in as Chairman of UN Security Council.This means the (?) POTUS has control of all assets within the US for the purpose of the UN agenda. This is in direct violation of sect. 9 of the US Constution. This will also give the UN the final authority they have been waiting for. I have asked for everyone to call their congress and representatives and voice this blatant unconstitutional action. What can be done?

  5. pip
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:22 am

    How strange.
    For days (since you went to court the other day) now I have been unable to get to your blog via my favorites (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/). The page showing was:

    PAGE NOT FOUND
    We cannot locate the page you’re looking for. Please check the address and make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces. You may also move to a different page by using the links in the menu bar above.

    I have spent endless hours looking for your site, I even took off the blog1 part at the end and could not get to it. I thought maybe your site was down. It is only going through google, clicked on a link and here you are. I wonder if anyone else has had the problem.

  6. NewEnglandPatriot
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:24 am

    You are absolutely right in everything you said and plan to do. We support you 1000%.

  7. Alex
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:32 am

    I wanted to post this to your site the other day, but was unable. I know you cannot use language like this with Judge Land – the language you use is MUCH better! And I subsequently wrote that Land is obviously intimidated by you, afraid of you, because you, Orly, are MUCH smarter than he is. When he saw your reply to his childish tantrum, his subsequent response was quite muted. All “Clay Feet” Land could do was repeat the word “frivolous” over and over and over…

    I don’t think that word means what Land thinks it means!

    Anyway, on Sep 17, I wrote:

    The traitor Clay Land dragged it out because he was trying to put on a good show for his Creepy Corporate Cabal overlords. “Look, I’m doing what you told me – now can I have my money?”

    This boy – he’s obviously not a man – uses no reasoning, no logic in his ruling. Land comes at it in true obot fashion, Saul Alinsky style: If you’ve got nothin’, sink to using ad hominem attacks (“Alice in Wonderland”) and riducule.

    Do judges normally lower themselves in this way in their rulings?

    And if ANYONE thinks that simply saying something makes it so, it is the idiot Land:

    Because Land says that Obama is not ineligible because a bunch of money was spent does NOT make it so, even if Land wishes it did.

    Because Land says that there was ample opportunity for discovery does NOT mean that proper discovery was pursued or made (not sure my terminology is correct), even if he wishes it was.

    Because the unpatriotic traitorous morons in Congress have their thumbs up their collective @$$e$ doesn’t mean that Obama isn’t ineligible, even though Land wishes it did.

    And I’d love for someone to tell me what this means, vis-s-vis “irony”:

    “Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status,” Land states. “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.”

    Do we all not have to prove who we are when we get a driver’s license, let alone run the free world? Is it too much to ask that the guy with the launch codes be forced to prove his citizenship??

    No, Orly Taitz, our “Lady Liberty,” is not to blame for this. The blame sits squarely on the shoulders of everyone who is sitting back and doing nothing, or worse, working AGAINST those who are doing their best to save our country. I’d hate to see the “reward” that is in store for those that are selling the United States down the river. Orly Taitz is paddling upstream as fast as she can, and making headway. We should all be helping her to steer this situation the best of our individual abilities!

  8. Ralph C. Whitley Sr. A Decorated Veteran
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:49 am

    Attorney Taitz: What amazes me is the deafening SILENCE from Kenya about the Lucas Daniel Smith Stamped Copy of the Obama II birth certificate filed as Exhibit A with the Sworn Declaration. Surely the State Department and FBI have rechecked everything yrt Obama is NOT removed as an Alien Born Usurper Felon as Impeachment does not apply for a felon in any office by fraud IMHO. 092009 11:49 AM Tampa

  9. Howard
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:54 am

    As you prepare a response to the misguided Clay, please take note of Atty Mario Apuzzo’s thoughtful analysis of Clay’s missive.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    Friday, September 18, 2009
    “Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So” — Judge Land, Rhodes v. Obama

  10. Harry H
    September 20th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    Looks like Judge Land has no interest in pursuing truth or justice in the Rhodes case because his goal is to take you down, Orly. Since Rhodes herself has apparently turned on you because of Land’s judicial misconduct in attacking and disparaging you personally, this is about you and Land now. I trust you will ask, as attorney Mario Apuzzo does at his blog, ” Why did Judge Land not apply the same evidence standard to Obama’s on-line COLB as he did to the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate?”

    Hopefully there is a way to appeal, but please protect yourself and don’t let Land distract you too much from the Barnett et al. case. It is Barnett we are betting on now for discovery.

    I just hope you can persuade Judge Carter that this is not a political question of “policy choices,” as DOJ contends. It is a question of what the Constitution says and whether what the Constitution says matters a tinker’s damn.

  11. Remember Pa.
    September 20th, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

    The sanciton may be a path to having DISCOVERY . The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions. Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision.
    Another judge in Pa. wanted to sanction a lawyer who was representing some kind of interest that Bergh had in DC. Here is the excerpt.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110300

    WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
    Judge threatens eligibility lawyer with $10,000 fine
    Says case, appeal of dismissal, frivolous
    Posted: September 19, 2009
    12:40 am Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    A judge who dismissed a lawsuit over President Barack Obama’s eligibility and was accused by the attorney of exhibiting “subservience” to that “same illegitimate chain of command” now is threatening the lawyer with a $10,000 fine.

    U.S. District Judge Clay Land of the Middle District of Georgia had dismissed a complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief by Capt. Connie Rhodes, the medical doctor and Army officer who wanted a restraining order to prevent her overseas deployment on the basis Obama has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

    Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling many of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, immediately filed a request for reconsideration of the dismissal, even though she was threatened by the judge with sanctions.

    (Story continues below)

    “Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto president is not even nominally the commander-in-chief of the Article III Judiciary,” the request said.

    Military litigation team attending earlier emergency hearing on Sept. 14

    It was less than a day later when the irate judge responded.

    “In her most recent tirade, plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this action. Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the president, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action … accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that ‘the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and … subservience…,” the judge wrote.

    “This filing contemptuously ignores the court’s previous admonition that plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda,” Land wrote.

    “Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days…,” Land wrote.

    Land is the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, a decision that now is on appeal.

    As WND reported, Rhodes filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ga., earlier this month, requesting a restraining order preventing her deployment overseas on the basis that the top of the chain of command, President Barack Obama, has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

    Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the questions over his birthplace by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

    “After conducting a hearing on plaintiff’s motion, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous,” Land’s ruling on the initial case stated. “Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.”

    Taitz, however, followed immediately with an emergency request for stay of deployment pending motions for rehearing.

    James Robertson

    WND reported earlier in another eligibility case when a federal judge threw out a lawsuit by a retired military officer because the subject had been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”

    The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions. Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision.

    In his statement, Robertson ridiculed the complaint, which never had a court hearing, finding that the eligibility issue had been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”

    His dismissal ordered the attorney to respond immediately and explain why there should not be financial sanctions. Hemenway complied, pointing out that the assumption of Obama’s eligibility “assumes facts not in evidence.”

    Hemenway also suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow him to require the release of Obama’s birth information.

    “If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past,” he wrote to the judge.

    “The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.

    Robertson immediately backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway, a reprimand which now is on appeal.

  12. Jacqlyn Smith
    September 20th, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

    YOU GO ORLY…..Still praying for you and wishing you the best!!!

  13. live oak
    September 20th, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

    Godspeed Orly. I’m losing my faith in Judge Carter. I hope that maybe you’ll be able to talk to him; he CANNOT go back on his word. He’s a Marine!!!!
    We love you so much. I pray for your safety and success.

  14. Jeepers
    September 20th, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

    Go get him, Orly. You tell that Judge Land that he is a Usurper lover and a traitor. You tell him you want Rule 11 discovery on Obama’s birth certificate to show your case had merit. And you tell him you’re not paying him a dime — since all money is worthless. And that you want 10 pounds of gold from the government for opposing all your motions.

    And good luck in the Barnett case, too. I saw that Kreep filed something but I am sure that what you file will knock their socks off.

    Jeepers

  15. Don Lovvo
    September 20th, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    Dr. Taitz, my prayers will go with you. I live in CA on a fixed income. If I had any extra money, you would be welcome to it.

    Stay strong and someone, somewhere will listen and restore the Constitution.

  16. icecream
    September 20th, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

    There is an interesting article on the Free Republic..

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2344009/posts
    called
    Orly Taitz Flock Shootin’

    Is there any info in the article that is sound? I kinda like the idea that he is suggesting bias toward Dr. Taitz because of her gender…a real ‘hot’ spot in the US.

    We love you Orly. Thank you for all you do.

  17. Dianne carlucci
    September 20th, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

    Dr orly, Please, please, please becareful what you do. This is so important! I’m beegging you. I want you and Judge carter to make history and free us of this tyranny. I’m with you all the way. Just be careful what you do.

  18. Denise
    September 20th, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

    You are in my thoughts and prayers Orly. I am also going to try to send you a contribution this week. Not as big as I wish I could but I hope it helps with your expenses.

  19. Bellagio
    September 20th, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

    My thoughts in the way I see it…

    I’m not being specific or judgmental in what I say… even of Judge Carter. But only by my experience and observation has my view been influenced and shaped…

    Most Jurists are not interested in REAL justice, only protocol and intellectual sparing. It’s mostly a game in clever & legalese wit before a judge. In other words… the game trumps the justice. And it is the GAME that you are forced to play in order to qualify or earn your right to seek ANY justice at all. Passing the Bar is your right-of-passage into a corrupt club of players. Those who hold graft over honor… subversion over justice. There is NO room for righteousness and decency in the politics of jurisprudence.

    Judges see themselves as infallible purveyors OF jurisprudence and are VERY arrogant. They protect their own and RARELY roam off the plantation of stare decisis, precedence and case-law.

    To a judge you are just a mere mortal standing before all mighty.

    Stroke the judge’s ego you must… and be POLITE as well as making a good thorough argument, whether before the bench, in submitted briefs or through appeal… but if you display open dissent by talking over the judge, opposing his view or ignore court protocol then you loose. Case dismissed with no opinion or with prejudice and maybe sanctions.

    Frivolous… a judge’s favorite reason used to tell you simply to… GET LOST. Or it may be his way in following the orders of the party line (or payoffs, threats) or simply because he decides not with reason… but with personal prejudice.

    I wish our Lawyers and Jurists saw justice as Mr. Smith did in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, but as surely as Mr. Smith fought for what was right and decent, so must all of us. The corruption MUST STOP!

    Quote from the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart as Jefferson Smith:

    “Jefferson Smith: Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for him self, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that’s what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we’d better get those boys’ camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it’s not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!”

    “Jefferson Smith: …I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don’t know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them; because of just one plain simple rule: ‘Love thy neighbor.’… And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other. Yes, you even die for them.”

    Yes… a great deal of Judges ARE corrupt with power, authority and by influence, but also… in having the LAST WORD.

    Walk quietly but carry a VERY BIG STICK!

  20. Louis McCarten
    September 20th, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

    Judge Land is probably corrupt.

    Was he, one wonders, at the receiving end of stacks of crisp, hundred dollar bills or was it a beach condo at a tropical island resort? Or could it have been BOTH maybe? (The ‘Obots’ have gargantuan amounts of cash to throw around and buy off everyone in sight–which they certainly are doing–including the judiciary system it appears).

    And so what if we don’t have any proof of corruption in the court system–there wouldn’t be any anyway as you probably well know.

    Either way Land is a disgrace to America. What a nightmare. However, we cannot let people like Judge Land stop us–American democracy is far too important.

    God bless you, Ms. Taitz. You are doing very very important work. I will continue praying both for you and for American democracy.

    I stand by you.

    Louis McCarten

  21. JuridicalPrudence
    September 20th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

    Re: the Land decision – Orly, since the topic of Obama’s British citizenship was introduced (over and above the judge’s tunnel vision of the COLB only) and completely ignored by the judge, you should have a case for appeal. He did not address the British citizenship under the Constitution, and accepted only the other part of the dual citizenship. Appeal!

    Also, since the judge, in his ruling, used the leftist progressive politically charged label of “birther” in his classification of you, you have a case for prejudice on his part (parroting a one party slogan without meaning) along with unfair justice given to your client since he lumped her into some classification of being used in his divined ” birther conspiracy” rather than giving her a fair hearing of her individual complaint.

    The defendants’ motion for dismissal in the Carter case is based, at least in part, on the “political question”. You should emphsize that it is a Constitutional question, raised before Obama ever had the chance to make policies, foreign or otherwise, and that the Constitutional question overrides anything else – which Judge Carter, in so many words, has spoken to as having to be settled.

  22. Frank
    September 20th, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

    Good luck! Many Americans will be praying and cheering for you.

  23. Christopher Ricci
    September 20th, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

    Orly,
    I live in Laguna Woods just north of you. I would like to offer myself as a volunteer aide. I’m not a lawyer; I am very active politically and I’ve worked as a volunteer in politics for decades. I also want to place an ad for you in the Laguna Woods Globe newspaper, for pro bono assistance for you.
    I need to get it in tomorrow to their advertising department. Could you help me with the wording? Please email me. If you need assistance immediately, I can meet you in the morning, at your office, home or even at the courthouse. I run the OC Writers: Conservative/Libertarian/Republican Meetup Group and The Sentinels For Freedom Club in Laguna Woods. They keep me busy, but right now you’re doing the more important work. Of course, I read Leo’s Natural Born Citizen.

  24. gail lightfoot
    September 20th, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

    The truth is staring us all in the face. The legal system does exist to merely echo the status quo and proper procedure.

    How about a Constitutional Amendment stating that any natural born citizen – defined as a person whose two parents were US citizens at birth – may, by simple petition, challange the Constitutionality of any law passed by Congress or any state legislature?

  25. Xavier Cugat
    September 20th, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

    Judge Carter’s jurisdiction in this case resides with Nixon v. J. Sirica 487 F2d 700 (1973). This is the appellate ruling certifying Judge Siricas right to subpoena Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. Nixon mounts the same defense for his tapes that Obama mounts for his records.

    This case demolishes all claims of executive privilege.

    Do not confuse this case with other Nixon cases like the ones from 1993 dealing with the tapes which was cited by the Obamas attorneys in their Motion to Dismiss.

    You can google this case and download it at home. Just type in the legal citation.

  26. anthony palmieri
    September 20th, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

    Barnett v. Obama: 2008 Joint Congressional Session Could be Discovery Loophole
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7337

    Submitted by Phil on Sat, Sep 19, 200943 Comments

    CreativeOgre at the CountryFirst forum and I had originally reported back in January regarding then-Vice President Cheney’s apparent failure to call for objections during the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes for the presidency.

    Thursday, attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following article in response to Judge David Carter’s recent motion to limit discovery in the case, Barnett v. Obama, presenting would could be a legitimate avenue of discovery (and this isn’t the only case that would be covering this angle; see below):

    [UPDATED: 9:45 AM. Upates in strikeout and red ink.]

    Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:

    All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

    Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

    Leo,

    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

    In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

    As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

    With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

    Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

    They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…

    The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

    Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.

    (See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

    The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

    This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

    There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see noofficial explanation available to the public.

    Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

    Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

    1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

    NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

    – Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.

    – Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

    Don’t limit the interrogatories deposition to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.

    2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

    After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.

    District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

    In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved. [emphases original]

    Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, has included the above as one of numerous points in that case (page 34):

    179. Cheney then asked the tellers to count the total votes and provide the totals to him as the President of the Senate.

    180. He then announced the vote totals for each candidate for each office, declared Obama and Biden the winners, and dissolved the Joint Session.

    181. At no time did he call for objections after the vote tally was reported for each state or at the end of the total vote for either office. http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1843&p=7069&hilit=B urris#p7265.

    182. Pursuant to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Cheney was required to openly call for objections to each state’s vote after each individual state’s vote is read. Cheney failed to satisfy this minimum procedural requirement. ENDNOTE 33.

    183. So not only did the Joint Session of Congress fail to vet and investigate Obama’s qualifications to be President under the unique circumstances existing in the public arena and given the petition of the plaintiffs and thousands of other people, but Cheney violated 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 by not openly calling for objections after each state’s votes were announced.

    Further, via my January posting, blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com said the following:

    In both 2000 and 2004, objections were raised; not after, but during, the counting of the votes. In 2000, the Congressman had no Senator, and the objection was dismissed. In 2004, a Congressman and a Senator signed an objection, the joint session was dissolved, it was debated for two hours, and the Congress came to a conclusion. I’ve got transcripts of the three years available, if anyone wants them.

    Perhaps Mr. Riggs — who still frequents my site — still has the documentation available.

    See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

    The background:
    Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
    Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
    Obama Citizenship Facts
    What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
    The questions:
    Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
    Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
    Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
    Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
    The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
    Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
    -Phil

    Tony ,
    JustA Roman Catholic Italian Kid from Williamsburg Brooklyn,
    Where the World was Neapolition

  27. anthony palmieri
    September 20th, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

    Barnett v. Obama: 2008 Joint Congressional Session Could be Discovery Loophole
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7337

    Submitted by Phil on Sat, Sep 19, 200943 Comments

    CreativeOgre at the CountryFirst forum and I had originally reported back in January regarding then-Vice President Cheney’s apparent failure to call for objections during the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes for the presidency.

    Thursday, attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following article in response to Judge David Carter’s recent motion to limit discovery in the case, Barnett v. Obama, presenting would could be a legitimate avenue of discovery (and this isn’t the only case that would be covering this angle; see below):

    [UPDATED: 9:45 AM. Upates in strikeout and red ink.]

    Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:

    All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

    Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

    Leo,

    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

    In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

    As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

    With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

    Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

    They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…

    The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

    Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.

    (See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

    The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

    This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

    There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see noofficial explanation available to the public.

    Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

    Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

    1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

    NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

    – Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.

    – Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

    Don’t limit the interrogatories deposition to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.

    2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

    After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.

    District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

    In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved. [emphases original]

    Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, has included the above as one of numerous points in that case (page 34):

    179. Cheney then asked the tellers to count the total votes and provide the totals to him as the President of the Senate.

    180. He then announced the vote totals for each candidate for each office, declared Obama and Biden the winners, and dissolved the Joint Session.

    181. At no time did he call for objections after the vote tally was reported for each state or at the end of the total vote for either office. http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1843&p=7069&hilit=B urris#p7265.

    182. Pursuant to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Cheney was required to openly call for objections to each state’s vote after each individual state’s vote is read. Cheney failed to satisfy this minimum procedural requirement. ENDNOTE 33.

    183. So not only did the Joint Session of Congress fail to vet and investigate Obama’s qualifications to be President under the unique circumstances existing in the public arena and given the petition of the plaintiffs and thousands of other people, but Cheney violated 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 by not openly calling for objections after each state’s votes were announced.

    Further, via my January posting, blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com said the following:

    In both 2000 and 2004, objections were raised; not after, but during, the counting of the votes. In 2000, the Congressman had no Senator, and the objection was dismissed. In 2004, a Congressman and a Senator signed an objection, the joint session was dissolved, it was debated for two hours, and the Congress came to a conclusion. I’ve got transcripts of the three years available, if anyone wants them.

    Perhaps Mr. Riggs — who still frequents my site — still has the documentation available.

    See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

    The background:
    Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
    Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
    Obama Citizenship Facts
    What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
    The questions:
    Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
    Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
    Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
    Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
    The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
    Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
    -Phil

    Tony ,
    JustA Roman Catholic Italian Kid from Williamsburg Brooklyn,
    Where the World was Neapolitan.

  28. Keep The Change
    September 20th, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

    One way to possibly help make this happen, (ousting the usurper), is to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Such as for people to contact Presidents, Prime Ministers, Trade Negotiators, Heads of Foreign Corporations, etc. from other countries who might be unsure that the treaties they sign with the U.S. and Obama are in fact legal or not. This would not be to hurt American or foreign jobs, but to give these companies and Heads of State time to pause and consider the consequences of their actions in negotiating treaties with this administration.

  29. BlackEagle
    September 20th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

    I have hollered, begged,screamed for a year on how we all have standing – read the attached (taken from the legal definition of standing) ————-Keyes, (if someone can get this to the overzealous Orly and she can slow down for 5 minutes and absorb it, would shoot down anything barry’s attorney’s can say), as well as all of us were hurt – for emotional pain is valid is it not? – in that when we cast our ballots we are doing so in the belief that we are participating in a democratic process – our right to vote and that our vote be used in a meaningful way regardless if we vote for whomever wins or loses in that given election in which we vote in. Anything less constitutes fraud and disillusions us as to our cherished civil liberties. Therefore we have suffered emotional injury (invasion of a legally protected interest as noted in #1 of the definition of standing below) and therefore we have STANDING!

    —————————————————–

    STANDING – The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person

    must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

    There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

    In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

    Standing is founded “in concern about the proper–and properly limited–role of the courts in a democratic society. ” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ ” Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity
    , 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

    Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

  30. DR AL
    September 20th, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

    My brother is a retired Judge and his opinion of Judges in general or as he refers to them,”devils in robes” is that they have for the most part, violated their oath to the Constitution and are bought off, owned, by the government and legislate from the bench. This Judge is not a Judge but a traitor who has been bought off by the usurper in chief and as such the only thing he deserves is removal by whatever means necessary, then tried for treason. The only thing frivolous in this case is the Judge himself. Besides my brother, I had a cousin who was an Appellate Court Judge in NY and was a man of the utmost integrity and love of country. If he were still alive and on the bench, you and the people would have an advocate who would uphold the Constitution, the rule of law and the right of the people for redress of grievances.

  31. Henry Tisdale
    September 20th, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

    I agree completely with Bellagio above. Do not put yourself in harms way, let excusable individuals like me do that work. The Team can afford to lose me, but not you Orly, NOT YOU.

  32. Tim
    September 20th, 2009 @ 9:22 pm

    There are many, many people standing behind you Orly. You are standing on the shoulders of giants, look far ahead, you can and see what we will not see. They will not throw you into a FEMA Camp. No, it’s not going to happen. Many people will get very angry if that happens. Just like the current ACORN Undercover video scandal, these issues CAN NOT be whitewashed and covered up. IT WILL NOT STAND. You are living history. You are a greater Patriot than many citizens that were born in this country. I am proud to call you my Sister in Freedom! If you get fined $10,000 or $100,000, American Patriots will raise the money to cover it. You KNOW they will, so don’t even lose any sleep over it. Try and use some US Marine Corps analogies with the judge. Remind him of the Oath he took to defend the US Constitution. Remind him of the Marine Corps Motto, God, Corps and Country and Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful) Remind him that if there is nothing to hide, that the Defendants should have no problems in producing these simple, Constitutionally mandated documents. Remind him that the Nation is WATCHING. Ask him to come down on the right side of history and stand with the Free Patriots of this country.
    God Bless you Orly, don’t lose hope, stay strong.
    Tim

  33. KeepItSimple
    September 20th, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

    Dr. Taitz, Esq.,

    Please, please keep it simple with Judge Land. Remind him of the basics – you supplied a birth certificate with a person willing to go to prison for perjury, and Obama supplied hearsay evidence with no chain of possession. Preponderance of evidence goes to you.

    Remind him gently that Obama publicly acknowledged his father was a British citizen when he was born, and ask if he really believes the Constitution was written in a way to allow a British subject to become president. Again, preponderance of evidence. Obama’s own words as to his father’s citizenship, no evidence at all of renouncing that citizenship on his part.

    And the third argument is that the question of whether both parents are required to be U.S. citizens for a child to be considered a natural born citizen as a qualification for the office of president has never been defined by SCOTUS.

    Then apologize for the 45 pound dossier you submitted to the court. Acknowledge that it has been submitted to the Attorney General, where it properly belongs, and beg his forgiveness that it was convenient for you to reuse it when filing this case due to the several cases you are working on. But please reconsider your decision based solely on the arguments above.

    And as for Judge Carter and ‘standing’ – remind him the Constitution trumps everything, including the SCOTUS-defined rules of standing, particularly in this case. Precisely because the only outcome is a political solution from Congress, the rule that there be a court-supplied solution as a leg of ‘standing’ is moot.

    However, that does not prevent the Court from a finding of fact. In this case, the facts are 1) it requires both parents of a child to be U.S. citizens at a child’s birth in order for the child to qualify as a natural born citizen and 2) Obama’s father was Kenyan / British and 3) you have a person willing to stake his life or serve prison time who will testify to his evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, and Obama’s evidence is hearsay and 4) Obama’s mother was not old enough at the time of his birth to confer her citizenship to him.

    So your request to Judge Carter is to merely find that Obama is unqualified to serve as President. There is no request for relief. That has to come from Congress, after the court has issued its decision.

  34. Terence
    September 20th, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

    The letters here are so poetic and from the heart. It is so plain that the people here sincerely want justice, and are not looking to make cynical political points.

    How tragic it is then to have Judge Land write an order filled with contempt for the ideals the judiciary is there to protect.

    I was taught in grade school (at a time when such things were valued and taught) that our government was designed with a system of checks and balances. That is why we have three branches of government to ensure its proper functioning, Administrative, Legislative and Judicial. Today they all seem to be failing, and if they do, our nation fails.

    Fon now we can hope that Judge Carter may still hold this view. Judge Land’s attitude is so biased that there is probably no way to seek justice in his court. The ‘record’ in his court is apparently what he reads in the news and what the Administration tells him, and not what is brought before him in court. A judge should have courage and humility, as well as the ability to decide facts.

    I think we are in a political season in which only courageous Judges can withstand.

  35. Michael G.
    September 20th, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

    Keep at it! Thise sactions wont amount to anythiung when the donations come in. I’ll be sending you a big check soon. Fight back!

  36. anthony palmieri
    September 20th, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

    Dr.Taita please read:
    Barnett v. Obama: 2008 Joint Congressional Session Could be Discovery Loophole
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7337

    Submitted by Phil on Sat, Sep 19, 200943 Comments

    CreativeOgre at the CountryFirst forum and I had originally reported back in January regarding then-Vice President Cheney’s apparent failure to call for objections during the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes for the presidency.

    Thursday, attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following article in response to Judge David Carter’s recent motion to limit discovery in the case, Barnett v. Obama, presenting would could be a legitimate avenue of discovery (and this isn’t the only case that would be covering this angle; see below):

    [UPDATED: 9:45 AM. Upates in strikeout and red ink.]

    Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:

    All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

    Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

    Leo,

    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

    In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

    As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

    With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

    Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

    They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…

    The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

    Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.

    (See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

    The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

    This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

    There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see noofficial explanation available to the public.

    Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

    Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

    1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

    NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

    – Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.

    – Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

    Don’t limit the interrogatories deposition to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.

    2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

    After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.

    District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

    In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved. [emphases original]

    Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, has included the above as one of numerous points in that case (page 34):

    179. Cheney then asked the tellers to count the total votes and provide the totals to him as the President of the Senate.

    180. He then announced the vote totals for each candidate for each office, declared Obama and Biden the winners, and dissolved the Joint Session.

    181. At no time did he call for objections after the vote tally was reported for each state or at the end of the total vote for either office. http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1843&p=7069&hilit=B urris#p7265.

    182. Pursuant to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Cheney was required to openly call for objections to each state’s vote after each individual state’s vote is read. Cheney failed to satisfy this minimum procedural requirement. ENDNOTE 33.

    183. So not only did the Joint Session of Congress fail to vet and investigate Obama’s qualifications to be President under the unique circumstances existing in the public arena and given the petition of the plaintiffs and thousands of other people, but Cheney violated 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 by not openly calling for objections after each state’s votes were announced.

    Further, via my January posting, blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com said the following:

    In both 2000 and 2004, objections were raised; not after, but during, the counting of the votes. In 2000, the Congressman had no Senator, and the objection was dismissed. In 2004, a Congressman and a Senator signed an objection, the joint session was dissolved, it was debated for two hours, and the Congress came to a conclusion. I’ve got transcripts of the three years available, if anyone wants them.

    Perhaps Mr. Riggs — who still frequents my site — still has the documentation available.

    See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

    The background:
    Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
    Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
    Obama Citizenship Facts
    What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
    The questions:
    Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
    Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
    Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
    Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
    The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
    Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
    -Phil

    Tony ,
    JustA Roman Catholic Italian Kid from Williamsburg Brooklyn,
    Where the World was Neapolitan.

  37. Jesus' General
    September 20th, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

    Go get ’em Orly!

    Never give up this fight. I am in the military and I have seen the FEMA gulags up close. Trust me, they are for real.

    You are very brave to continue given that this government throws innocent people into the FEMA camps and Guantanamo Bay Cuba!

  38. Civis Naturaliter Natus
    September 21st, 2009 @ 12:36 am

    Bellagio,

    What you say is very true: you can read it in the paper every day, about outrageous rullings from courts all over the land.

    What we need is Court Reform…we need a federal reform of federal courts, which must do away with all these petty legal theories which prevent the Constitution from being the Supreme Law and give judges excuse to strain gnats and swallow camels…

    We need jugdes to be immediately subject to criminal charges for depriving citizens of due process, or any other constitutional right…

    As soon as a judge uses ad hominems, he should be removed from the case, disciplined and put on probation, and if he does it a second time, he needs to be automatically dismissed…if he sanctions anyone from personal motives, he needs to be impeached and sent to prison for LIFE!

  39. Leon Brozyna
    September 21st, 2009 @ 3:18 am

    Dr. Taitz:

    In perusing a number of web sites and commentary on the Rhodes case and the latest results, I find that the comments generally fall into two groups —

    *** 1 – the judge is terrible and the ruling is an injustice.
    *** 2 – the judge is correct in properly smacking down Orly.

    I suggest that there is a third possibility that exists that no one seems to have publicly mentioned — that Judge Land is brilliant by handing down a deliberately inflammatory ruling bordering on judicial misconduct thereby inviting Rule 11 discovery.

    Just think about it for a minute.

    If Judge Land had granted the TRO, the case might have dragged on for months before getting to the discovery phase. On the other hand, the judge could have dispassionately denied the TRO by narrowly interpreting the law in favor of the defendants and Cpt Rhodes would have deployed to Iraq, making further motions moot.

    By ruling as he did, as though he was having a judicial melt-down, it seems he has practically handed you an engraved invitation to submit a motion for Rule 11 discovery. Did he do this deliberately in the hope that you would take this route? We’ll never know. Even if this case blows up in Obama’s face, Judge Land’s thought processes may remain forever hidden (unless he has his memoirs published after he retires or dies). The point is that you now have, in this case, the best possibility to go for discovery – perhaps even better than in the case pending before Judge Carter. Craft your arguments carefully – Obama’s defense team may come to really hate Judge Land for his seeming melt-down.

    Another thought – there was an earlier case in which the judge dismissed plaintiff’s motion and referred to blogs, the internet, twittering, etc. in his ruling. Made quite a splash when the ruling was handed down. I believe the case is still out on appeal – may have tried for rule 11 discovery based on judge’s conduct. Something else you may want to look into after you’ve responded to defendant’s motion before Judge Carter.

    Everything seems to be coming together. The next few weeks may just turn out to be the most important in our Republic’s history. Our prayers are with you.

    Leon Brozyna
    CW2, USA (Ret)

  40. KBB
    September 21st, 2009 @ 3:48 am

    Orly, since Judge Land threatened you with sanctions if you bring another case to him, wouldn’t it be effective to do just that – to bring another case before him and be sanctioned by him? Then, when sanctions were levied, you could demand discovery in defending yourself against the sanctions. Wouldn’t that accomplish discovery? I believe this was what Judge Robinson said to the 85-year-old lawyer (forget his name) who was representing Berg’s client. The judge threatened the lawyer with sanctions, the lawyer pursued the lawsuit with the judge and said, “bring it on”, and the judge backed off, because to apply sanctions would have meant going to court and requiring the review of Obama’s docs.

  41. David Ben-Ariel
    September 21st, 2009 @ 9:23 am

    God bless you Orly Taitz! You’re the Alexander Solzhenitsyn in this
    Constitutional crisis
    created by the president usurper, speaking truth to power, demanding Emperor
    Obama
    stop keeping America in the dark and start bringing documents to
    light to prove whether or not he is a natural born citizen!

  42. David Ben-Ariel
    September 21st, 2009 @ 9:24 am

    God bless you Orly Taitz! You’re the Alexander Solzhenitsyn in this Constitutional crisis created by the president usurper, speaking truth to power, demanding Emperor Obama stop keeping America in the dark and start bringing documents to light to prove whether or not he is a natural born citizen!

  43. Shawn
    September 21st, 2009 @ 10:21 am

    Orly,

    You can slice and dice JUDGE LAND for his “frivilous” label…by reminding him that he MUST take Judicial NOTICE ofBarrack OBAMA’s own ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST….a fact not in dispute that he claims that his “birth was governed by te British NAtionality Act of 1948, making him a dual citizen at birth…not withstanding the FOLLOWING FACTS:

    If Judge Land will give NO CREDIBILITY to the Kenyan B/C with its attached declaration…then he can not GIVE any credibility to the COLB…for it also lacks LEGALLY cognizable verification as well…..

    Judge Lands opinion IN FACT lacks fairness and demonstrates obvious BIAS to the parties on his opinion regarding this issue alone…..

    Judicial THREATS ought to be met with FACTUAL issues this Judge missed for his own convience while denying justice to BOTH parties…..

    Remember Orly, a battle this big is not going to be won with one big stride, but will be won with each little step in the right direction…..simplify this….

    ONE issue is easier to argue than many and one win at a time will eventually win the war…..

    Rage on girl!!!!!!!!

  44. cq
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    Go go go go Olry

  45. andyLevinson
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:35 am

    That the governor of hawaii has sealed obama’s birth certificate from public inspection……says all there has to be said

    We have a fraud in OUR white house

  46. David
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 12:22 am

    What’s the matter Orly? Cannot handle a comment on your web site that does not lick your toes? You’re entitled to your opinion but why are you afraid of posting a comment that doesn’t agree with you? Ah, rhetorical question… I know why.

    I asked this before and I don’t know why exactly I ask again when I know you don’t have the courage to post this on your web site but here goes:

    If the elected president was who YOU voted for, if you AGREED with the policies, and if you still thought the president was ineligible, would you on this path?

    Didn’t think so. You are making hay on this issue BECAUSE you DON’T LIKE the guy or his policies, not for some sacred regard for the constitution. In short, you and all the other birthers (all 500 of them) are frauds. Disgusting..