Posted on | September 17, 2012 | 47 Comments
Press release by attorney Orly Taitz.
Report on Kansas challenge against Obama.
Today as I entered the assembly I saw the “Occupy people” with signs, ready for fight, and fight it was.
At the hearing I brought 2 main points:
1. Original objector to Obama’s candidacy Joseph Montgomery withdrew his objection under duress. It was widely published that he was under duress. He, his family and co-workers were harassed with e-mails and phone calls. I forwarded to the Sec of State all of the evidence. I argued to him that duress negates the intent. If the withdrawal was under duress, it is invalid. I gave him an example of rape. If a rape victim withdraws her criminal complaint against a thug who raped her because she is under duress, because he threatens to kill her and her family, such withdrawal of criminal complaint is invalid, as it was under duress.
Koback claims that he did not receive evidence of duress. It was a complete lie. I forwarded to him evidence of duress and his attorney Ryan Kriegshouser confirmed that he received it.
2. Second point was that he claimed that he no longer has jurisdiction to hear the objections. I responded that it is not true as well, as according to the Kansas annotated statute 25-208a he has 10 days, which will not expire until the end of the day today. See the chapter below. He said that it is not in the statute. I stated that it is in the statute and demanded that he read the statute to the public seating in the audience, as it is a public hearing and the public is entitled to know, whether he has jurisdiction or not.
3. Finally one of his staff attorneys found the statute below and read it.
At that point the public could hear that the 10 day period is correct, but the staff attorney came up with a third excuse. He claimed that because the statute says that it is relates to the nomintion it does not apply, as we are talking about the certification.
I responded and argued that in this case it is the same: the certification is indeed a nomination by the Democratic party of Obama as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. It is a nomination and it is a declaration by the Democratic Party convention that they nominated Obama as their candidate, therefore the secretary of State has the right and the jurisdiction and the duty to hear the evidence.
4. Lastly Koback claimed that even if he were to have the jurisdiction there is a letter from the Registrar in Hawaii. I responded to him that this letter from Onaka is negated by the evidence that I provided previously that Obama is using a stolen CT Social Security number, forged birth certificate and a forged selective service certificate.
At that point the other two people on the board, two operatives sent by the Attorney General Derek Schmidt and the LT Gov Jeff Colyer got really restless, (Schmidt and Colier were afraid to show their faces), they demanded to vote immediately and they demanded to dismiss the challenge immediately and adjorn the meeting, which they did.
Koback stated that I can bring my arguments to the Superior court. He was a bit better than others, but at the end of the day his adherence to the Constitution is nothing but hot air and show. He follows the same marching orders as the rest of the establishment. In my mind I was wondering whether the whole challenge and hearing were staged in order to show that something is done and to promote three young bureaucrats in KS: Koback, Schmidt and Colyer. Keep in mind, the public already suspects Schmidt to be a part of the establishment due to his decision to dismiss the case against the Planned Parenthood.
My testimony picked the interest of the media and after the hearing I gave interviews to Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, Kansas public radio and a number of other local papers and stations. I gave them the video tape of the hearing in GA, videotaped sworn testimony of the witnesses and all the documents. some of the reporters gave me their names. One was from WIBW-TV, I believe it is NBC or CBS affiliate in Kansas and he said that he believes that the report will be on 6 pm news. Othe reporters were Lauren Seabrook and Scott Schyle.
It was clear that all of Obama’s thugs were under the marching orders to yell and scream and not let me speak. As I was giving the interviews they formed a half circle behind me, about 20 men, most of them african American men, who were yelling, screaming, hackling. I thought in a minute they would beat me up. When we were going downstairs a policemen went with me and told the hacklers not to follow us, but to go in the elevator. The police had to move the interview 3 times and disperse due to constant yelling and hackling.
The protesters did not have any valid arguments of course. They were yelling “Stop it, stop it”. “Show us your birth certificate, where were you born? Racist! Obama’s mother is from Kansas, he is one of us. Everyone is equal under the law”. Later reporters interviewed some of the protesters, who protested against me. I pointed out to the Associated Press reporter and others the difference between me and Obama’s thugs. I pointed to them that when I spoke, Obama’s people were yelling, screaming, acted like wild animals, while when they spoke I was silent and politely listened to what they had to say. Obama and his people believe that politeness and civility should go only one way: we need to be civil towards them, but they do not need to show any civility and they believe they can drown the truth and justice with yelling and screaming and hackling.
I noted that indeed everyone is equal under the law, that anyone else committing the same crimes as Obama: using a stolen Social Security number, forged birth certificate and a forged Selective Service certificate would go to prison, and that is where Obama belongs, as we are indeed equal under the law.
End of the report and press release
Chapter 25: Elections
Article 2: Primary Elections
(b) Within three days from the date of the filing of nomination petitions or a declaration of intention to become a candidate for county or township office or for precinct committeeman or committeewoman, the county election officer shall determine the validity of such petitions or declaration.
(c) If any nomination petitions or declarations are found to be invalid, the secretary of state or the county election officer, as the case may be, shall notify the candidate on whose behalf the petitions or declaration was filed that such nomination petitions or declaration have been found to be invalid and the reason for the finding. Such candidate may make objection to the finding of invalidity by the secretary of state or the county election officer in accordance with K.S.A. 25-308and amendments thereto.
History: L. 1978, ch. 135, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 107, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 121, § 1; July 1.