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


Taitz v Fuddy “Opposition to motion to dismiss”

Posted on | September 30, 2011 | 80 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

In Propria Persona

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy., Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

                         )

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,                                         )    CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN

                                                                                    )

                                    Plaintiff,                                  )

                        v.                                                         )     OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

                                                                                    )     DISMISS PETITION FOR

                                                                                    )     WRIT OF MANDAMUS

LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL                  )

CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE                     )

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF                         )

HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS                       )

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,    )      Hearing:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF             )      Date:  October 12, 2011

HAWAII,                                                                   )      Time:  8:30 a.m.

                                                                                    )      Judge: Hon. Rhonda A.                                                                                                   )                  Nishimura

                                                                                    )

                                    Defendants.                            )

__________________________________________)

            Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (“Dr. Taitz”) hereby opposes Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss her Petition for a Writ of Mandamus as follows:

            I.  INTRODUCTION

            Dr. Taitz seeks to authenticate the “birth certificate” released by Barack Obama on April 27, 2011 by comparing that PDF image with any records that might be on file in the Hawaii Department of Health. To that end she requested, by subpoena issued under the power of a Federal Court, the right to view the record. Such request was met only with objections prompting the within action seeking an order from this Honorable Court requiring the Director of Health to make the questioned records available for assessment.          

            The usual privacy concerns advanced by holders of vital statistics records should be overcome by the release of the records by the purported holder himself—in this case, Barack Obama.

            Nevertheless, Defendants continue to withhold such documents in spite of the obvious national importance of the issue. They advance two procedural arguments and one substantive argument in their Motion to Dismiss. They argue (1) lack of personal service for insufficiency of service of process, (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

            This Opposition addresses those claims in reverse order, seriatum.

            II.  THE RECORDS SOUGHT CAN AND SHOULD BE RELEASED UNDER HAWAII LAW AND ON PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS.

            Defendants endeavor to establish that Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-18 “prohibits” disclosure of Barack Obama’s alleged “birth certificate” which “certificate” has now already been purportedly disclosed by Obama himself.

            The heart of Defendants’ substantive argument is that HRS section 338-18 allows only a certain enumerated list of persons with a “direct and tangible interest” to access Hawaii’s public health records. (See Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at pp. 6-8) Defendants parse the statute but fail to acknowledge that the list of “directly and tangibly interested” parties to which such a vital record can be disclosed is not exhaustive by the terms of the statute, nor has it been interpreted to be so by a court of competent jurisdiction or in this peculiar and compelling circumstance. Defendants cite not to any case law for their proposition of exclusivity, but merely to an “Office of Information Practices” Opinion. (See Defendants’ Motion at pp. 7-9). Such an administrative “opinion” is not binding on this Honorable Court. 

            In their attempts to encourage the Court to read the list of “directly and tangibly interested” parties as exhaustive rather than illustrative, Defendants fail to reference the recent case of Justice v. Fuddy, 125 Hawai’i 104, 253 P.3d 665 (2011), which dealt with this sort of request before Obama’s public release of a PDF image of a “birth certificate” in April 2011. Significantly, the Court in Justice did not hold, and did not specifically address, whether the list of directly and tangibly interested persons is exlusive or not.

            Also, it is important to note that the Justice decision was issued weeks before the White House released its PDF image of the “Birth Certificate” on April 27, 2011—the suspicious image questioned by Dr. Taitz and others.

            While the Court in Justice denied the plaintiff access to Obama’s “birth certificate” allegedly maintained in Hawaii’s official records, Obama’s release of the purported PDF image of a birth certificate alters the calculus set forth in Justice, which tended to dismiss the interest of the plaintiff in that case as a kind of inert and idle curiosity.

            In the wake of the release of the image of the alleged “Birth Certificate” by Obama the inquiry becomes one not of simply viewing the “confidential” private vital records of an individual for curiosity’s sake, or for the sake of some sort of fishing expedition, but comparing, verifying and authenticating the sharply questioned “actual” “Birth Certificate” (if any) in the official record with the PDF image of the document released by its purported holder.

            Dr. Taitz raises serious questions about the authenticity of the document released by Obama and makes such allegations plain in her Petition/Complaint to this Honorable Court. These questions, coupled with the prior release of an image of the questioned document, compels the Court to grant access to this one record in this historic circumstance.

            The Justice decision makes clear that a Court “may also consider the reason and spirit of the law, and the cause which induced the legislature to enact it to discover its true meaning.” Justice at 125 Hawai’i 104, 110, 253 P.3d 665, 670.

            It cannot be said that the State must maintain any further alleged “privacy interest” under statute or public policy, as the subject of that confidentiality has most certainly waived it by purporting to release the vital record itself.

            The Justice decision cited various reasons for finding that the Plaintiff did not have a basis to release the records under HRS section 338-18. Chief among them was the observation that, “Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege any basis for questioning that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is eligible to serve as President.See Justice at 125 Hawai’i 104, 113, 253 P.3d 665, 673. Conversely Dr. Taitz’s assertion in this case expressly states that the release of the questioned “Birth Certificate” raises a high degree of suspicion and requires authentication. (See paragraphs 19 -34 of Dr. Taitz’s Complaint in this matter.)

            Moreover, when a document has already been publicly disclosed on a matter of grave national import, it can hardly be said that the holder of the record retains any sort of privacy interest in the mere viewing of a document that has allegedly already been disclosed. Public policy concerns compel production of such previously released record for verification purposes only. This is the basis of Dr. Taitz’s claim under the UIPA: for “[g]overnment records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual[.]” HRS § 92F–12(b)(3) (1993).

            Indeed, the Hawaii courts have a history of weighing public policy considerations strongly when assessing whether to make otherwise confidential records or procedures available for public knowledge. For example, the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that, “[w]hen analyzing the public interest exception, [it] look[s] to (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.” Hamilton v. Jones, 119 Hawai‘i at 6–7, 193 P.3d at 844–45.

            Further, “[T]he cases in this jurisdiction that have applied the public interest exception have focused largely on political or legislative issues that affect a significant number of Hawai‘i residents. For example, in Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai‘i 323, 172 P.3d 1067 (2007), the Court held that the public interest exception applied because it was “in the public’s interest for this court to review the family court’s ruling that Hawaii’s grandparent visitation statute [was] unconstitutional on its face.” Doe at 327, 172 P.3d at 1071.

            Additionally, in Kaho’ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai‘i 302, 162 P.3d 696 (2007), the Court held that the subject appeal was of a public nature because the outcome would affect all state and county employees. Id. at 333, 162 P.3d at 727. Likewise, in Right to Know Committee v. City & County of Honolulu, 117 Hawai‘i 1, 175 P.3d 111 (App. 2007), the Court held that the question presented was of a public nature because the issue whether the City Council must conduct its business in full view of the public and in compliance with the Sunshine Law was more public in nature than private. Id. at 9,

175 P.3d at 119.

            Dr. Taitz respectfully submits that in this case the Court should weigh heavily the public interest that all Hawaiians have in establishing the authenticity of the PDF image of the “birth certificate” released by Obama this past April. Any privacy interest that the holder of the record may have has been waived and the public quite simply has a right to know if there is a record in the official records of the State of Hawaii which corresponds to the PDF image of the Birth Certificate.

            III.  DR. TAITZ’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BUT RATHER DECIDED ON ITS MERITS.

            Defendants contend the Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the matter before it in this case. Defendants contend that Petitions for Writs of Mandamus have been abolished in the Circuit Courts except in certain circumstances which are not present in this case. Dr. Taitz does not concede this point, however, even if Defendants’ argument on this point is accepted, Dr. Taitz submits that this Court could and should  proceed to consider the matter by treating Dr. Taitz’ Petition either as a petition for relief with original jurisdiction arising in the Circuit Court or as an Agency Appeal to the Circuit Court.

            (a) Dr. Taitz submits that this Court could and should consider this action as an      action with original jurisdiction arising in the Circuit Court, even if it is    improperly styled as a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus.”

            While the “writ of mandamus” was nominally abolished in the Circuit Courts under the Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81.1 the rule also states that “….Relief heretofore available by mandamus may be obtained by appropriate action or by appropriate motion under the practice prescribed in these rules….” Dr. Taitz asks this Court to consider her “petition for writ of mandamus” as a complaint initiating an original action to compel “an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual” and to thus hear the matter on its merits.

            The Hawaii Supreme court recognized the possiblity of an action of original jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts even after the nominal abolition of the title of “Writ of Mandamus” by rule. See Nam Sing Shak v. McVey, 54 Haw. 274, 506 P.2d 8 (1973).

            The Court there stated, “The rule mentioned above [HRCP 81.1] is similar to Rule 81(b) of the Federal rules as to which it is stated in Hammond v. Hull, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 131 F.2d 23, 25 (1942); ‘The remedy which, before adoption of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, was known as mandamus, is available under the new rules and is governed by the same principles as formerly governed its administration.’ Original jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s claim for relief is in the circuit court.”  Id.

            The Court may also consider Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw. 125, 504 P.2d 1217 (1972), wherein the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Circuit Court for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and noted,

“The appellants’ petition for an alternative writ of mandamus will be treated as a

complaint.” Id. at 130, 1220.

            Thus, Dr. Taitz respectfully submits her claim before this Honorable Court should be treated as a claim for relief with original jurisdiction arising in the Circuit Court, even if the petition for relief is improperly styled.

            (b) Dr. Taitz’s petition may be considered as an agency appeal.

            “The right to appeal is purely statutory and exists only when jurisdiction is given by some constitutional or statutory provision.” Lingle v. Hawai‘i Gov’t. Employees Ass’n, 107 Hawai‘i 178, 184, 111 P.3d 587, 593 (2005). HRS § 91–14 confers jurisdiction on the circuit court to review “final decision[s] and order[s] in [ ] contested case[s].” As previously quoted, HRS § 91–14 provides in relevant part that:

            (a) Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested

            case or by a preliminary ruling of the nature that deferral of review

            pending entry of a subsequent final decision would deprive appellant

            of adequate relief is entitled to judicial review thereof under this

            chapter; but nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent resort

            to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo, including

            the right of trial by jury, provided by law. Notwithstanding any other

            provision of this chapter to the contrary, for the purposes of this

            section, the term “person aggrieved” shall include an agency that is a

            party to a contested case proceeding before that agency or another

            agency.

            To the extent this Honorable Court declines to find original jurisdiction to hear Dr. Taitz’s petition for relief, she requests the Court consider it on the basis of Department of Health’s refusal to allow her access to view the requested document.

            IV.   DR. TAITZ’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAUMUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION.

            The basis of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction is insufficiency of the service of process. However, Defendants do not dispute they received service or that they have actual notice of the proceedings herein. In fact, they have responded on the merits in this action, thereby waiving any objection they could properly raise to lack of personal jurisdiction.

            The Proof of Service attached to Defendants’ Motion as Exhibit B reflects service by certified mail on both the Director of Health, the Registrar of the Department of Health, and the Deputy Attorney General. The return receipts from the Director of Health and the Registrar of the Department of Health are also attached to the proof of service.

            Had an individual delivered the copies of the documents directly to the Department of Health, they would have been signed for by the front desk, as was likely the case with respect to the return receipts.

            If, for some reason, this Court is inclined not to decide the matter on its merits but instead find service of process insufficient, Dr. Taitz requests the opportunity to effect personal service in the manner which may be required by this Court. However, the Defendants have now appeared on the merits and raised defenses on the merits in their Motion to Dismiss. That should be sufficient to overcome objections regarding insufficiency of service of process, as it is a concession of actual notice and participation in the proceedings.

            V.   CONCLUSION.

            For all the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests this

Honorable Court deny Defendants’ motion on the merits and/or, if there is a procedural

deficiency of some kind, afford the Petitioner an opportunity to cure it. 

Respectfully submitted,                                              Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

September 30, 2011                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Comments

80 Responses to “Taitz v Fuddy “Opposition to motion to dismiss””

  1. Paula Hoehn
    September 30th, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

    Thank God! I thought you had dropped this when I saw the page you set up on Facebook saying that you now support Obama.

  2. Ray
    September 30th, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

    Dr. Taitz, I have a very good feeling about this. I can see that you have done a lot of work on this, as usual. This is very well written and very respectful.

    God please grant us this.

  3. Chantal
    September 30th, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

    Remember when Gabrielle Giffords was “shot?” 🙁

    I doubt very seriously any of the US Judges will get involved 🙁 since Federal Judge

    *John McCarthy ROLL*

    of Arizona was ASSASSINATED 🙁 barely 72-hours after a critical ruling AGAINST the Obama administration’s plan to begin the SEIZING of U.S. citizen’s private retirement & banking accounts & after having the US Marshals protecting him – removed.. 🙁

    This honorable Judge stated that he was preparing to rule AGAINST Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear & convincing evidence of a crime being committed.. 🙁

    Giffords was NEVER the target.. 🙁

  4. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    September 30th, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

    I never created such page. Surely some obot created a page

  5. Insight
    September 30th, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

    Chantal is desperately mistaken. It was a routine ruling in a forfeiture case where a car was used to smuggle drugs.

    Chantal – you need treatment.

  6. Birdy
    September 30th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

    Obama has claimed to have made his long form birth certificate public. It makes one wonder why the Hawaii DOH is still trying to hide it and fighting in court to keep it hidden.

  7. hippybiker
    September 30th, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

    Chantal is 100% spot on. If TPTB can kill a President of the united States in broad daylight on National TV, then cover it up; I wouldn’t put the murder of one or more Federal Judges past them. And that, gentle readers, scares the Hell out of me!

  8. The Truth
    September 30th, 2011 @ 9:24 pm

    Comments being deleted again, over and over. What gives?

  9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    September 30th, 2011 @ 9:37 pm

    because they are afraid to go to prison for aiding and abetting uttering of a forged piece of garbage

  10. Chantal
    October 1st, 2011 @ 3:46 am

    Fed. Judge John Roll issued a “prelim ruling” in “US of America v. $333,520.00 in US Currency et al.

    *Case No: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: Nov 30, 2010*

    Treatment for WHAT, asserting a fact, CLOWN? 😉

  11. Luella
    October 1st, 2011 @ 5:07 am

    I am not holding my breath.

  12. David Day
    October 1st, 2011 @ 5:20 am

    When was this Federal Judge Assassinated?

  13. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 1st, 2011 @ 6:28 am

    same day as Gifford was wounded

  14. Patty
    October 1st, 2011 @ 7:08 am

    Orly, please explain that “prelim ruling” in “US of America v. $333,520.00 in US Currency et al., Case No: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: Nov 30, 2010. What was that case about? What did Judge Roll rule?

  15. Chantal
    October 1st, 2011 @ 9:14 am

    Hon. Judge John ROLL ruled AGAINST Hussein’s administration’s plan 😉 to begin the SEIZING of U.S. citizen’s private retirement & banking accounts & – after – having the US Marshals protecting him – removed.. 🙁

    Hon. Judge ROLL stated that he “was preparing to rule AGAINST 😉 Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear & convincing evidence of a crime committed.. 😉

    He issued a “preliminary ruling” in US of America v. $333,520.00 in US Currency et al.” Case No: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: Nov. 30, 2010. 😉

    Sorry, I had no idea it was that difficult to ‘seam’ together my 2 comments.. 🙁

  16. Insight
    October 1st, 2011 @ 10:01 am

    Chantal – Have you read the complaint? Here’s the first paragraph:

    “Probable cause exists to believe that the Defendant Property shall be forfeited
    pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c) as set forth as follows: On or about April 13, 2010, Misael
    Sadrak Garcia-Ramos was attempting to exit the United States and to enter the Republic of
    Mexico through the DeConcini Port of Entry in Nogales, Arizona. He was driving the 2007
    Saturn Aura XE, VIN 1G8ZS57N97F136757, which was registered to him. When asked by a
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer if he had any currency or monetary instruments to
    report, he declared that he had less than $100. Mr. Garcia-Ramos was then escorted to the
    waiting room, while a secondary inspection was conducted on his vehicle. During secondary
    inspection, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers discovered that screws that should have been securing the plastic cover in the dashboard firewall area of the vehicle were missing. A K910B “Buster” density meter was then used on the area and it showed a high reading of 65-70. A normal reading is between 15-25. After receiving the high reading, the area was probed and several packages of currency were located. The vehicle was then taken to the lift area, where the packages of currency were removed. A total of $333,520 in United States currency was found. The currency was wrapped in separate brick-like packages, with green cellophane wrapping.”

    Doesn’t sound like retirement money but drug proceeds.

    Klown.

  17. Insight
    October 1st, 2011 @ 10:03 am

    Correction: that’s paragraph 6. The last 3 sentence of which read:

    “The currency was wrapped in separate brick-like packages, with green cellophane
    wrapping. The packages had names written on the outside. The names were “Junior,”
    “Horacio,” “Chuje,” and “Samuel.”

    Was this the retirement money of Horacio, Chuje and Samuel?

  18. questions
    October 1st, 2011 @ 10:27 am

    I always thought is was strange that Judge Roll’s death was not talked about that much. After Fast and Furious along with the many, many, many, many other things going on I tend to agree with Chantal

  19. Paul Jackson
    October 1st, 2011 @ 10:31 am

    Chantal… Do you have any idea what the case was actually about? Did you read the preliminary ruling?

    The answer to both must be no, as the case has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s private retirement and banking accounts.

    It had to do with the seizure of a car and money in the car which was being smuggled across the border, period.

    You can continue to post otherwise, but the court documents state differently.

    If we’re going to complain because the “other side” lies it does no good to spread what began as total the total BS you post on the case, and remains so.

  20. Chantal
    October 1st, 2011 @ 11:23 am

    But of COURSE it makes so much more sense to ASSASSINATE a Federal Judge for the reasons you nut-crackers give, right? 🙂 NOT! 🙁

    LOGIC, boys.. 😉

  21. Chantal
    October 1st, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
  22. Francis Black
    October 1st, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

    It’s not logic, Chantal, it’s fact. Read the case. It’s a very simple, done every day seizure of drug funds and property.

    The record shows what it is. The “retirement fund” meme is just made-up pure bull.

    You can repeat it all you wish, but it does not change the facts contained in the record, which are there for anyone to see.

  23. Francis Black
    October 1st, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

    @questions…

    You are of course free to agree with whomever you wish. The facts of that case in the record say otherwise. In fact the case ended with a stipulation agreeing with the seizure.

  24. Insight
    October 1st, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

    Chantal – caught lying about a case of the late Judge Roll then comes back with a post that makes absolutely no sense.

    Klown.

  25. Sunny D
    October 1st, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

    Actually, Chantal is totally correct about Judge Roll, she MAY have the ruling numbers wrong, but for you lazy people out there….GOOGLE it! I read about it RIGHT after the shootings….Obama was and IS planning on “moving” everyone’s 401K’s into a GOVERNMENT SLUSH FUND that they can SPEND like they have Social Security. They are going to tell you that your money is “safer” and will get “more interest” that way. Then they will spend to oblivion.

  26. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 1st, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

    it was done in South america, I believe, Argentina

  27. john
    October 1st, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

    Sunny D – wrap some more tinfoil around your head and the voices will be quiet for a while.

    Everyone knows Chantal is a liar and a clown. Birthers think if you repeat a lie enough, it will eventually become a fact.

  28. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:40 am

    The purpose of the comments was to make everyone aware that the Hon. Judge ROLL was indeed, ASSASSINATED! 🙁

    A Constitutional attorney will know exactly what is concerning about the exact wording & the Hussein Admin’s use of Roosevelt’s Executive Order for the seizing of gold in the case itself. 🙁

    Yes, the case had to do with smuggling money into the US, but you have to read the case (pleading) word for word carefully, because it can lead to other matters. 😉

    Always remember, it’s about SEIZING PROPERTY whether there was CLEAR & CONVINCING evidence of a crime being committed or not. Judge ROLL ruled AGAINST it in the preliminary hearings. For that, he was MURDERED! 🙁 🙁 🙁 That was my entire point!

    Further, there are laws already in place for seizing money & what that means is if the fed admin can start seizing money, DRUG MONEY, because they are cartel, but they can NOT just start taking money legally. It goes AGAINST the laws already in place & it will lead to many other chains of events happening. 🙁

  29. jcm52
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 7:52 am

    ” I read about it RIGHT after the shootings….Obama was and IS planning on “moving” everyone’s 401K’s into a GOVERNMENT SLUSH FUND that they can SPEND”

    And I read, right after Sept 11 that Bush knew about it in advance and all the Jews who worked at the twin towers had been called and warned not to come in that day.

    Of course, that was a bunch of bull.

  30. Paula Hoehn
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

    Dear Orly,

    Someone is falsely using my name in their despicable post #1 above, September 30th, 2011 @ 2:12 pm.

    I did not post the comment in #1 above, about your facebook and obummer.

    You will know me by my e-mail address.

    Paula Hoehn

  31. Patty
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

    Chantal, I do not believe your name is “Orly Taitz.” Please, allow the attorney to answer.

    Also, would someone please link to the ruling?

  32. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

    Paula, there was some hacking into my site, where they replaced IP addresses of the readers with 2 addresses from Network solutions, so now Obama supporting thugs can post garbage under names of my supporters and using their e-mail addresses, and it is hard for me to tell who is doing it. I complained to Network solutions, but so far nothing was done. It is possible, that someone within Network solutions is causing problems

  33. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

    “..Chantal, I do not believe your name is “Orly Taitz.” Please, allow the attorney to answer. Also, would someone please link to the ruling?..

    ……………..

    Patty, if you were not so DUMB 😉 & full of yourself 😉 you might’ve seen the LINK I posted [#21]..

    I always forgive stupidity, but have a bit of a problem when a DUMB BELL attacks.. 😉

    I responded since I was the one posting.. 🙂

    See what happens when you forget your Rabies Booster shot? 🙁

  34. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

    Oh my, I am so terribly sorry that someone might’ve mistakenly presumed that I was intelligent enough to write what I did.. 😉

    I am also originally from Europe & fluent in 5 languages.. 🙂

    And yes, SO sorry again, but I do have a
    Ph. D. as well.. 🙁

  35. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

    perhaps # 33 was a bit harsh, I’ll resend.. Please do not post, thanks

  36. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

    “..Chantal, I do not believe your name is “Orly Taitz.” Please, allow the attorney to answer. Also, would someone please link to the ruling?..
    ………………………………

    Paula, if you were no so full of yourself 😉 you might’ve seen the LINK I posted [#21]..

    I responded with a clarification since I was attacked for my original post.. 🙁

    I bet you’re not going to forget that Rabies Booster shot again, ‘eh? 🙂

  37. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

    “..Chantal, I do not believe your name is “Orly Taitz.” Please, allow the attorney to answer. Also, would someone please link to the ruling?..
    ………………………………

    Paula, if you were not so full of yourself 😉 you might’ve seen the LINK I posted [#21]..

    I responded with a clarification since I was attacked for it.. 🙁

    I am so terribly sorry that someone might’ve mistakenly presumed that I had enough brain power to explain the way I did.. 😉

    btw.. I am also originally from Europe & fluent in 5 languages.. : ( yep, really hard core stuff.. 🙁

    I bet you’re not going to forget that Rabies Booster shot again, ‘eh Paula? 🙂

  38. Chantal
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

    Orly, no one posted for me, I did so myself. 😉

  39. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:36 pm

    we are not talking about you, we are talking about Paula, who sent a COMMENT, THAT SOMETHING WAS POSTED BY SOMEBODY ELSE UNDER HER NAME

  40. Paul Jackson
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

    “The purpose of the comments was to make everyone aware that the Hon. Judge ROLL was indeed, ASSASSINATED! :(”

    No, the purpose of the story in the first place was to spread lies about something which never happened nor was going to happen.

    “A Constitutional attorney will know exactly what is concerning about the exact wording & the Hussein Admin’s use of Roosevelt’s Executive Order for the seizing of gold in the case itself. 🙁 ”

    One would not have to be a constitutional attorney to read the pleadings from the case to know all the talk of the taking of everyone’s retirement was nothing but pure bull.

    Some people, however, will believe anything, and some people, knowing full well a statement is false, will repeat it so those who are gullible and refuse to do their own research will believe it.

    The only question remaining is which are you, Chantal.

  41. RacerJim
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 6:10 am

    @Paul Jackson

    The only question is which side are you on, Paul Jackson; America’s or Obama’s?

  42. Paul Jackson
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 9:40 am

    @ RacerJim…

    “The only question is which side are you on, Paul Jackson; America’s or Obama’s?”

    Not everyone would see those choices as having a difference, but to answer your question directly, I’m an American and I’m on the side of America and the upholding of the Constitution.

  43. The Truth
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

    Holy Moly! I just read this bunch of comments and my head is spinning.

    Chantal,
    I have a few words of advice for you. Anything you say here will be investigated for accuracy. That is a given, so please be factual, for your own good.

    Also, do us all a favor and cut the smiley, winkey, emotion faces after every sentence. This isn’t Sesame Street. We are debating serious issues. Issues that, in many ways, will determine

  44. The Truth
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

    Holy Moly! I just read this bunch of comments and my head is spinning.

    Chantal,
    I have a few words of advice for you. Anything you say here will be investigated for accuracy. That is a given, so please be factual, for your own good.

    Also, do us all a favor and cut the smiley, winkey, emotion faces after every sentence. This isn’t Sesame Street. We are debating serious issues. Issues that, in many ways, could determine the future of our free world.

    Now let’s get back to the main issue of contacting our elected officials as well as anyone with power or stature, who can go after the Usurper in the oval office.

    Time is running out on America. Use that time wisely.

  45. No Sharia in America
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:19 am

    @ The Truth,

    Listen boy, a few words of advice: you take yourself way too serious, I love Chantal’s comments, always look forward to her witty and spot on remarks.
    This is an adult site and, you might not agree, but the smileys are for anyone to use. I look forward to them as it’s easier to find Chantal’s comments that way.
    Now, get lost 😉

  46. RacerJim
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:12 am

    @ Paul Jackson

    Anyone who wouldn’t see a difference between those choices cannot be an American (in heart and soul), and an American on the side of upholding the U.S. Constitution cannot be on Obama’s side.

  47. jcm52
    October 4th, 2011 @ 10:14 am

    Jim:

    North Korea can decide to give citizenship to all children of registered Republicans. If we care for America and the Constitution and your definition of natural born citizen, does that mean that 50 years from now we’ll be having to check the voter registration of every presidential candidate’s parents? I’m on the Constitution’s side and America’s side. That means I’m not on your side.

  48. Paul Jackson
    October 4th, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

    @ RacerJim

    “@ Paul Jackson

    Anyone who wouldn’t see a difference between those choices cannot be an American (in heart and soul), and an American on the side of upholding the U.S. Constitution cannot be on Obama’s side.”

    That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. It’s America. I merely stated not everyone would agree that those are mutually exclusive, which is a fact. And no I don’t agree with your conclusion that because they don’t agree with you they are unAmerican.

    Simply because someone holds a different view and position on the Constitution and rule of law than you does not make them unAmerican any more than your differing views and position than theirs makes you unAmerican.

    Both your premise and your conclusion based thereon are flawed.

  49. William
    October 5th, 2011 @ 10:54 am

    Paul Jackson,

    If I may be so bold and polite, I appreciate your paradigm. It is with my perspective reviewing your comments towards direct questions asked of your stance, blatant deviations are obviously avoided. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you and your views of Constitutional correctness.

    This of course is neither here nor there as I am not accusing you of anything other than misinterpretation on my part.

    As paraphrasing many comments by yourself, claims of Legal authority, Constitutional rights – Law itself – is your pacification of reasoning. This of course, can and is being questioned.

    Certainly, we may both agree that we hold very different views of the Constitutional responsibilities of Federal Government roles assigned to them, as written. As my assertion goes, is they overreached that many decades ago, mostly through corruption.

    Our Founding Fathers were not ignorant, nor stupid. They understood that as a new Society grew and time moved forward, it may require a change in the Constitution. This is the reason the left us Article clause, the ability to change/amend the Constitution. Yes, they made it difficult to do and agreements with the States and its voters, but for reasons to prevent tyranny and dictatorship and avoiding their minimum authority granted to them.

    One only needs to review the Federalist papers and the Continental Congress to understand such, including its warnings.

    Paul, you may certainly represent Constitutional implementation within the United States, as you see it; but that neither clarifies nor alleviates your responsibility to the American Citizens of your undeclared view pertaining to the investigation(s) of Obama and whether or not, in your professional and American Constitutional Citizen stewardship, whether or not, Americans have a Right to Know who is their so called elected official.

    All Americans, have a right to know of their elected officials. If anyone dismisses such as hogwash, utilizing pathetic court rules or the lack thereof, for the highest office in the United States, declaring “its none of your business”, “You have no right to know”, “You have no right to verify”, ect., then I question those that support it.

    And by golly, so did our finding fathers. And for very good reasons.

    Which side to you stand on Paul? The Right to know? Or the “its none of you business” because the courts will not allow the people to know?

    Its not a difficult question.

  50. RacerJim
    October 5th, 2011 @ 11:39 am

    @ Paul Jackson

    Given Obama’s self-proclaimed distain for the U.S. Constitution and numerous violations thereof while persuing his stated goal of fundamentally transforming the United States of America, I’d say my premise and my conclusion is far less flawed than yours.

  51. The Truth
    October 5th, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

    No Sharia in America,
    By your own statement, this is an adult site, so please act like one yourself, and stop defending the childish “emo-cons”. It amounts to nothing but baby talk to readers and commentors who are dead serious about defeating the Usurper and his minions.

    If you would care to read my last comment again, you would see I was giving some much needed advice. Now let me give you some. Calling someone “boy” is a derogatory remark in my book. So please let it be the last time you insult me so blatantly and casually.

    Paul Jackson,
    I do believe that Racer and William got the best of you in that argument, unless you care to try to wriggle out of your words. Would love to hear an intelligent rebuttal!

    No Sharia in America,
    Not so much.

  52. Bob J
    October 6th, 2011 @ 4:49 am

    @ WIlliam

    You have some beautiful words in your post. Too bad they don’t go together very well.

    “It is with my perspective reviewing your comments towards direct questions asked of your stance, blatant deviations are obviously avoided”

    What does that mean? I do not like to take things out of context, but your rambling mess is an abomination. The only people who can follow are the ones as crazy as you.

    Hey, Truth

    Try to cut and paste certain words to make me look crazy. I dare you.

  53. William
    October 6th, 2011 @ 9:18 am

    By the way,

    As a professional experienced Analyst, I will say this. Once is considered an outlier, twice gains your attention, more than that is no longer considered an anomaly and we begin to look for the pattern.

    Obama, is a pattern, of a false past.

  54. William
    October 6th, 2011 @ 9:58 am

    Bob J
    October 6th, 2011 @ 4:49 am

    You have some beautiful words in your post. Too bad they don’t go together very well.

    “It is with my perspective reviewing your comments towards direct questions asked of your stance, blatant deviations are obviously avoided”

    What does that mean? I do not like to take things out of context, but your rambling mess is an abomination. The only people who can follow are the ones as crazy as you.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    John Bob Billy Boy,

    Let me break the English down for ya….

    I see ya avoiding any comment that asks ya any question that requries ya a to be specific in ya answser. please be a wee bit more speicific ya know, and don’t keep avoiding, ya know the question you be asked.

    ya know kow?

  55. William
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:13 am

    Or, I can break it down part by part for ya.

    1) It is with my perspective – it means the way Ii personally view it.

    2) reviewing your comments – it means I have read the persons comments. (Hope I haven;t lost you yet)

    3) towards direct questions – it means questions asked of the person I am referring too.

    4) asked of your stance – it means the person I am referring too has taken a particular position, it is used in past tense. (Still with me)?

    5) blatant deviations are obviously avoided. – it means that the person I was referring too, has avoided answers and instead went astray, or on a tangent (still too big of words for ya) from the original question asked to begin with.

    Together it is: “It is with my perspective reviewing your comments towards direct questions asked of your stance, blatant deviations are obviously avoided.”

    -sigh-

  56. No Sharia in America
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:17 am

    I doubt seriously this will post……

    @ The Truth,
    I call ANYONE who writes like a 12 year old, BOY!
    ======================

    “……By your own statement, this is an adult site, so please act like one yourself, and stop defending the childish “emo-cons”. It amounts to nothing but baby talk to readers and commentors who are dead serious about defeating the Usurper and his minions..….”

    ===================

    A riddle for you: “If the entire American media, including other countries, were to BELITTLE you, does that add up to “success?”

    With all due respect, I do not wish to diminish Dr. Taitz’ accomplishments, but feel strongly that she is exacerbating the problems by accepting endless donations WITHOUT making progress; her Modus Operandi will NOT get the Obama’s out of the White House! It merely insures the flow of donations………

    A friend who scans mostly for Chantal’s comments made me aware of the site. The first time I read about Chantal was when she suggested that the ONLY way to eliminate the usurper MAY be via MILLIONS PROTESTING PEACEFULLY! She even suggested that, for a start, she volunteered to design, I believe, postcards, giving much credit to, and including an attractive image of Dr. Taitz, that people could make copies and hand out to others and send to their representatives.

    I totally agree that it is WE, THE PEOPLE, by the millions, who eventually WILL remove the usurper, NOT a woman whom the media and most Americans do not even take seriously.

    And frankly, I am not so sure that Dr. Taitz, who is Jewish, is not the controlled opposition……

    How much ATTENTION do the “Wall street” protesters reap, the entire WORLD media is reporting!!! Just how much you think is possible IF those SAME people were to question the LEGITIMACY of Obama? However, the section with that particular suggestion from Chantal lasted only a few hours. Yet, a few weeks later we find that such protests do garner WORLDWIDE attention!

    =========================

    Dr. Taitz’ “thank you” to those who undoubtedly spent time money and much effort………

    “YOUR PHONE CALLS, LETTERS AND VISITS TO CONGRESSMEN ARE WORKING. ONE OF THE CONGRESSMEN WILL PERSONALLY MEET WITH ME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I WILL PROVIDE MORE INFO AFTER THE MEETING.”

    =========================

    Dr. Taitz needs to realize that is virtually IMPOSSIBLE go it alone, because she CAN’T!

    And, it would be really nice to see the woman THANKING her supporters instead of ONLY asking for support, most of the time “please” or “thank you” are conspicuously absent as you see above; which is what happens when the ego is becoming used to being overblown by silly misplaced adoration from many whom erroneously believe that she can actually accomplish the impossible…….

    Her supporters donate, and I believe she has many, many poor souls who cannot really afford to pay, but they do so because they totally and mistakenly trust in her ability to remove Obama.

    How much, I like to know, would Dr. Taitz have been able to fly all over the Globe, getting negative attention, IF her supporters had not reimbursed her for the $20,000 in addition, pay her thousands of dollars? But, HOW does she thank her supporters?

    ================

    “……When I endure $20,000 of sanctions, which I paid from my pocket…..”

    =================

    Of course Dr. Taitz has been super successful in her endeavor so far, NOT!

    Last but not least, you, BOY, are a MUPPET who has no right to tell ANYONE what they can or cannot post! America most certainly can use Chantal’s great humor and wit as that is what prompted me and many others to even pay attention to the site! 😉

  57. William
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:38 am

    By the way Billy Bob,

    Trust me, Paul Jackson is highly intelligent and should not be considered otherwise. His writings remind me of another personal endeavor I have held the luxury and privilege of debating or discussing topic issues. Paul does not need you to rescue him, no more than anyone with myself.

  58. William
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:56 am

    Bob J
    October 6th, 2011 @ 4:49 am

    “Hey, Truth

    Try to cut and paste certain words to make me look crazy. I dare you.”

    _________________________________

    So you now have the new download of the Webster dictionary on your PC, and now “Challenging” anyone to throw out a “new word” to you, on a dare?

    This is too damm funny.

  59. john
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:54 am

    William – pretending to be an attorney, an accountant, an “analyst”, and literate, all at once.
    “His writings remind me of another personal endeavor I have held the luxury and privilege of debating or discussing topic issues” – what the hell does that mean? Nothing, as it turns out.

  60. jcm52
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:56 am

    William:

    “blatant deviations are obviously avoided. – it means that the person I was referring too, has avoided answers and instead went astray, or on a tangent (still too big of words for ya) from the original question asked to begin with.”

    Um, no. You’ve twisted yourself around in such a knot trying to appear intelligent that you’ve come out facing backwards. It actually means it is obvious that the person did not avoid answering the question. In other words, the person answered the question. Or, more precisely, it means the opposite of what you claim. To mean what you claim it means, you would have actually said: “blatant deviations are used.” Or to keep more in your ‘eloquent’ style: “blatant deviations are obviously employed.”

  61. The Truth
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

    It’s amazing how you throw out a little bait once in a while and the libtards will come out of the woodwork, screaming incoherently.

    No Sharia,
    Do us all a favor and look up the word “sarcasm”. Then take your panties out of their bunch,wipe your forhead off , and calm down before you have a coronary.

    Your defense of Chantal’s use of smiley faces is simply mind boggling. And you actually have a “friend” that scan’s for Chantal’s comments? Hahahahahahaha! WTF?

    I think you need to call Bob J up and ask what meds he takes……no wait., I see he’s back again. He must need a different prescription.

    Poor Bob J. He thinks I need to cut and paste certain words together to make him sound crazy. I wasn’t even aware that he was included in the conversation. He must have thought I was one of the pesky voices in his head that keeps bothering him.

    William,
    When they don’t have a factual argument, they will try to mince words. I used to try to reason with them. But its no use. They are lost.

    Some of us understand you clear as a bell and agree with your points. Others understand you, but are so outraged because they disagree with you, that they feel they need to falsely question your intelligence, and pick at your words. Then there are the Bobs and Johns of the world that show up just in time to fight over who gets to wear the dunce hat next.

  62. The Truth
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

    No Sharia for America,
    By the way, who are you to come on Orly’s site and tell her she isn’t making any progress on getting to the bottom of Dear Leader’s fraudulent papers? That is laughable.

    Who has a court appointment next week on October 12th in Hawaii, to move one more step closer to the truth? If you weren’t following Chantal around like the Grateful Dead , you might know.

    Chantal,
    No offense to you, but I just find No Sharia a bit ridiculous.

  63. William
    October 7th, 2011 @ 9:25 am

    john
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:54 am

    William – pretending to be an attorney, an accountant, an “analyst”, and literate, all at once.
    “His writings remind me of another personal endeavor I have held the luxury and privilege of debating or discussing topic issues” – what the hell does that mean? Nothing, as it turns out.

    ___________________________________

    John, once again you have proven yourself to levels of a moron, including but not limited pure ignorance.

    The person I was responding too, does in fact have similar writings as one that is personally aware of my email address, has been in touch with me well over a year ago (on and off) and he also uses various names depending on the website.

    Get it now? Most likely you don’t, or will spin it. Obots are great at that.

    I never claimed I was an Accountant, nor an Attorney, those are your words. I am however an analysts. I do in fact hold a degree in Business Management and Engineering. I do in fact hold 3 international certifications in advance statistics. I do in fact teach advance Statistics applied to engineering functions in process manufacturing.

    So you see John, I am and very well capable, of “Analyzing”.

    You John, need to crawl back to your ACORN hole from which you crawled out of…

    Trust me John, you neither intimidate me, nor frustrate in the same.

  64. William
    October 7th, 2011 @ 9:49 am

    The Truth
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

    “William,

    When they don’t have a factual argument, they will try to mince words. I used to try to reason with them. But its no use. They are lost.”

    _____________________________________

    Absolutely.

    Allow me to present an enhanced argument. How can anyone support an argument without any supportive facts?

  65. William
    October 7th, 2011 @ 10:09 am

    jcm52
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:56 am

    “blatant deviations are obviously avoided”

    According to jcm52: It actually means it is obvious that the person “did not avoid” answering the question. In other words, the person answered the question.

    ___________________________________________

    Really?

    How the hell to you derive at that conclusion?

    In example. jmc52 works for xyz company. Company policy as written, describes that jmc52 must call into work if requesting a sick day.

    jmc52 fails to comply and is written-up and put on probation. In jmc’s write-up, the manager notes that jmc “blatantly deviated from company policy”.

    According to jmc, she/he interprets it as “It means I complied and followed the rules”.

    quite funny,

  66. William
    October 7th, 2011 @ 10:37 am

    By the way,

    John and jmc52 both, are posting comments to legal issues and political policies!

    John, jmc52: Are either one of you Congressional Members in Washington? Are either of you Lawyers”

    If not, then why are you posting your comments here? If you post your comments to policy, you must be acting as a member of Congress, right? If you post a comment disagreeing with Dr. Orly’s (or others) current ongoing legal suit, then you must be a lawyer?

    And if you are neither, then why are you attempting to place such titles to others? This is called Hypocrisy.

  67. Bob J
    October 7th, 2011 @ 11:58 pm

    It is the height of hypocrisy to attempt denigration of the truth. wIlliam, the truth, racer slim, florence, and the host of this hot mess of a site are all guilty. What is your argument? Why do you hate America?

  68. William
    October 8th, 2011 @ 6:24 am

    Bob J,

    What do you mean “what is your argument”?

    In case you are unaware, the “argument” is simple. Obama has never been vetted, period. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

    On the one side Bob J (Yours) you defend not vetting Obama.

    On the other side (Mine) I say Obama (and all politicians) should be vetted.

    Not a difficult argument. If you happen to agree that all politicians should be vetted to the public, then you would agree with me. If you claim politicians should not, then stay on your side of the fence and explain why not.

  69. William
    October 8th, 2011 @ 8:06 am

    No Sharia in America,

    I understand your frustrations but do not comprehend your comments.

    If there is another means of exposing the all the records and vetting Obama “that you are aware of”, then please post such.

    As of now, Congress has failed its Constitutional duties in such, the Courts have claimed its none of American citizens business, the U.S. Supreme thus far have claimed they are staying out of it, not touching it with a ten-foot pole.

    I am all ears to you and your friends solutions.

  70. William
    October 8th, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

    Maybe,

    Since my vocabulary is sub-par,I need to speak with a Harvard level, like Obama.

    Allow me to rephrase without a teleprompter.

    I uh, uh, you know, am uh,, uh the leader of the uh, free, uh world, and those of you, uh, um, um, suffering on main street, while wall street is making a profit is wrong.

    Now, um, you know, ah, that as we come, uh come together, we need to work together, and that means in Washington as well. (Cheers in the background).

    I, uh as your uh President, promised I will pull this together. And …..if….the republicans don’t sign off on my new, new, new, new, new , new bill for creating jobs, then uh, um, um, they are obstructing job creations in the United States and the um, um people in the um States, will not support it, um, um all 57 of them.

    Damm I should have attended Harvard…..But then again, I didn’t have a Muslim connection to have the prince pay 10 million in donation to accept me.

  71. Bob J
    October 9th, 2011 @ 12:07 am

    So according to William,

    A prince paid for the Presidents Harvard education.

    Prove it, jackanapes

  72. john
    October 9th, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

    LittleWilly – really? You claim to be some sort of “analyst” who holds “a degree in Business Management and Engineering”. Is that one imaginary degree or two, William?
    It’s hard to believe you even attended college based on your sub-literate writing skills.
    Face it, William – you like to pretened to be things that you’re really not. Like educated.

  73. William
    October 12th, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

    Johnboy,

    Would you like the honor of answering Bob J’s question pertaining to the 10 million dollar donation giving by SAUDI Prince Al-laweed Bin Talal for Obama’s Harvard Law School tuition & getting Obama appointed to head the Harvard Law Review?

    Or should I?

  74. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 13th, 2011 @ 5:55 am

    what is there to say? I am sure this was an understnding, but this quid pro quo wasn’t in writing, so it will be hard to prove, and even if you prove it, Harvard is not a governmental agency, they are a private university, they can do, whatever they want.
    I have to concentrate on governmental agencies and courts

  75. john
    October 13th, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

    That’s easy, Willieboy – both are obvious lies. President Obama paid his own tuition to Harvard Law through a combination of scholarships, grants and student loans. Prince bin-Talal is a major donor to Harvard (and as one of the 50 richest men in the world, a major philanthropist), but he has no influence over the Law Review. The Prince also funds a scholarship named after one of his close friends – the George H.W. Bush scholarship at Phillips Academy.
    Your focus is admirable, Orly – if only you could use your energy for something positive.

  76. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 14th, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

    this is the most positive thing I can do for the country, expose this massive corruption and remove the fraud and the criminal from the WH and have him criminally prosecuted

  77. Bob J
    October 15th, 2011 @ 2:51 am

    William,

    Tell me the story of the Saudi Prince.

    Pretty Please?!?

    Or are you a Faulkner?

  78. big trucks
    November 23rd, 2011 @ 1:16 am

    big trucks
    Greetings! I’ve been reading your site for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the fantastic work! big trucks

  79. Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Ballot Challenge | The Post & Email
    January 18th, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

    […] birth certificate purportedly held at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.  That case, Taitz v. Fuddy, is still open.  While she stated that she believes there is a Hawaii statute which compels […]

  80. Credit Keeper
    March 30th, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

    Great article! I loved the insight and advice given. Further, your article writing style is very fun to read. If you have time please browse my brand new webpage and let me know what you think.

Leave a Reply





*