This TRO Motion is being filed today

Posted on | December 19, 2012 | 6 Comments

Dr. Orly  Taitz ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Phone 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

Orly.taitz@gmail.com

Counselor for the Plaintiffs

US District Court

For the Eastern District of California

 James Grinols, Robert Odden,  in their capacity  )Case #   12-cv-02997

as Presidential Electors                                             )MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

Edward C. Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, ) RESTRAINING ORDER

Keith Judd in their  capacity as                               )

candidates  for the U.S. President                         )

v Electoral College, President of the Senate,       )

Governor of California, Secretary of State          )

of California, U.S. Congress                                     )

)

)

)

INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiffs bring this action as Presidential Electors and as candidates for U.S. President, who, having been deprived of lawful process in the statewide election for the national office of U.S. President held in California on November 6, 2012, as a direct and proximate result of the mispersonation and elections fraud perpetrated by defendant Obama, seek redress from this court to enjoin:

1. Secretary of State and Governor from certifying the Certificate of Ascertainment due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the Commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

2.  The Electoral College from tallying their votes due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

3. governor of CA from forwarding the Certificate of Electoral Vote to the US Congress  due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

4. President of the Senate from presenting the Certificates of the Electoral Vote to the U.S. Congress due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

5. U.S. Congress from confirming the elections results due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

6.  Defendant Barack Hussein Obama from taking the oath of office as a U.S. President on the inauguration day due to his lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by him, as the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the Commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office.

Plaintiffs, who are Presidential electors and Presidential candidates have standing to raise these claims as directly interested parties.  These claims are justiciable, and as this court has one last opportunity to act, the claims are not moot.  Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419, 425 (9^th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs incorporate herein the complaint and petition for injunctive relief filed herein on 12.12.2012 and exhibits pp1-107 to aforementioned complaint and petition for injunctive relief

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs incorporate herein the complaint and petition for injunctive relief filed herein on 12.12.2012 and exhibits pp1-107 to aforementioned complaint and petition for injunctive relief.

Defendant Obama is not qualified for the office of U.S. President, as he is a citizen of Indonesia operating under an alias.

Defendant Obama is using a forged birth certificate to validate his claim of an American birth. In proffering false documents in order to obtain a federal position, Defendant Obama (in this case, the Presidency) has violated 18 USC § 911 (falsely representing that he is a US citizen); and 18 USC § 1001 (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, § 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.) in falsifying his identity as a member of the executive branch of the federal government.

Defendant Obama is using a forged Selective Service Certificate to demonstrate his claim of a lawful registration for the draft, when no such registration occurred.  In proffering a falsified draft registration, Defendant Obama has violated 18 USC § 1001, and is further disqualified from holding any position within the Executive branch of the United States government pursuant to 5 USC § 3328.

/ / /

Defendant Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number which was never assigned to him as a proof of his identity. In proffering a false social security number, Defendant Obama, is in criminal violation of 42 USC § 408, which provides as follows:

(a) In general

Whoever – (6) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive the Commissioner of Social Security as to his true identity (or the true identity of any other person) furnishes or causes to be furnished false information to the Commissioner of Social Security with respect to any information required by the Commissioner of Social Security in connection with the establishment and maintenance of the records provided for in section 405(c)(2) of this title; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Defendant Obama is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to hold the office of the Presidency, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The crimes are egregious violations which vitiated the ability of the plaintiffs in this case to lawful process in the furtherance of the November 6, 2012 election.

In addition, the November 6, 2012 election in California was marked with substantial voter fraud.  Over one and a half million invalid voter registrations in California have been discovered, in violation of elections statute 2150.  756,213 records were without a birth place, 685,739 records where instead of a required name of the state of birth, U.S. or U.S.A was entered, there were as many as 141,851 possible duplicate records, 130,019 records with birth date over 100, 757 records without a birth date, and 898 records without a first name. (Exhibit 11, 12).  Employees of the Registrar’s office from Orange County and Los Angeles County have admitted in e-malls to falsification of voter data by entering date 1900, when they found no date, and entering USA or US when the name of the state of birth is missing.  (Exhibit 19). The number of registered voters in California went up by over a million since the last Presidential election in 2008 and most of the increase came from on line registration.

EVIDENCE UPON WHICH PLAINTIFFS RELY

            Plaintiffs rely on the following evidence, all of which has been provided to this court:

1. Certificate of Nomination for Edward C. Noonan as candidate for the office of President; (Ex. 1).
2. Affidavit of Michael Zullo; (Ex. 2).
3. Affidavit of Douglas B. Vogt; (Ex. 3).
4. Affidavit of Timothy Lee Adams; (Ex. 4).
5. Affidavit of Felicito Papa; (Ex. 5).
6. Affidavit of Felicito Papa; (Ex. 6).
7. Affidavit of Linda Jordan; (Ex. 7).
8. Affidavit of Dr. Ronald J. Polland; (Ex. 8).
9. Affidavit of John N. Sampson; (Ex. 9).
10.  Social Security Number Verification System report; (Ex. 10).
11. Affidavit of David Yun; (Ex. 11).
12. Affidavit of David Yun; (Ex. 12).
13. Registration of Barry Soetoro in Indonesia; (Ex. 13).
14. Declaration of Christopher-Earl Strunk; (Ex. 14).
15. Affidavit of Susan Daniels; (Ex. 15).
16. Official Report of the National Assembly of Kenya, Mar. 25, 2010; (Ex. 16).
17. Report: The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and Raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’ (Ex. 17).
18. Affidavit of Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio; (Ex. 18).
19. Emails: Public Records LA County; (Ex. 19).
20. Certificate of Live Birth (Hawaiian exemplar); (Ex. 20).
21. Certificate of Live Birth of Defendant Obama (White House file); (Ex. 21).

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The United States Supreme Court revisited the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction in Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits; that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

            A candidate for office is presumed to hold the qualifications to seek and hold that office, unless and until a party proves to a court of competent jurisdiction that the candidate is not qualified.  Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wn.2d 268, 285, 971 P.2d 17 (1999).   The burden of demonstrating that Obama is not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency is on plaintiffs.  Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence, 112 Wn.2d 127, 135, 769 P.2d 298 (1989); see also Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).  Plaintiffs rely exclusively on the fact record contained herein; namely the Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama (Ex. 21) as posted on the White House website, and expressly adopted by Obama.

Here is the official statement from the White House website:

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet.

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.

The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting.

Here is the comment of Barack Hussein Obama concerning the release of this Birth Certificate:

We’ve posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. Transcript of President’s remarks following the release of the long form Birth Certificate, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, April 27, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. PDT. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/remarks-president.

Federal Rules of Evidence, 804(3) provides for the admissibility of this evidence, and plaintiff submits that judicial notice should be taken thereof:

(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

Because Plaintiffs have granted standing to bring this charge, and because the issue is justiciable in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, (see Marbury v Madison, op. cit.), this court must therefore consider the law regarding the precondition of facts as admitted by Barack Hussein Obama and consider whether he is actually able to hold the office of the Presidency.

1. Standing

Article III standing means an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and has some likelihood of redressability. Fleck and Assocs., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 471 F.3d 1100, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2006). Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 556-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The Supreme Court has also recognized third-party standing in cases involving jury composition. See, e.g., Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392, 397-400 (1998) (allowing a litigant to raise a claim on behalf of third parties where (1) the litigant has suffered an “injury in fact”; (2) he has a “close relationship” to the third parties; and (3) there is some hindrance to the third parties asserting their own rights); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-15 (1991).

Plaintiffs have standing to raise this claim.  Plaintiffs James Grinols and Robert Odden are Presidential Electors who have been deprived of their ability to cast a lawful vote for the Presidency, and Edward C. Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, and Keith Judd have been deprived of a lawful election for the office of the Presidency.  Their claims are distinct, and the remedy sought herein will redress these claims by preventing the codification of an unlawful election.

1.  Justiciability

          The integrity of the election system in the state of California is not non-justiciable or purely a political issue.  The Governor of California and its Secretary of State have a mandatory duty to discharge the office by supporting both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California.

“It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

          If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 137 (1803).

Furthermore, it is the duty of the Governor and the Secretary of State of California, and all members of the Legislature, all public officers (including Electors) and employees, all executive, legislative, and judicial officers, to apply constitutional regimen in the governance of a statewide election, pursuant to their oath of office set forth here:

“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

(If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of _____________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”  Article 20, Section 3, Constitution of the State of California.

Because the Governor of the State of California, the Secretary of State, and the Electoral College have a duty to preserve the integrity of the election system under the United States Constitution; because Obama is in criminal violation of federal laws concerning his identity, and because he has failed to establish 1) lawful citizenship; 2) a lawful name; 3) a lawful social security number identification; 4) a lawful registration for the selective service system; 5) natural born citizen status are required under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the US Constitution: plaintiffs have been deprived in 1) their ability to cast a lawful vote for the Presidency (elector plaintiffs) and 2) their candidacies for President.  This can be redressed by this court when the court enjoins the Electoral College from certifying its vote.

1. Mootness

The basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.  Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9^th Cir. 2008).  In this case, this court is the last bulwark between the life of the constitutional republic of the United States, and its demise.  This court can and should fashion relief, and because such an opportunity exists for this court to enjoin the Electoral College from moving forward with the election of a candidate for President who cannot lawfully hold the post, the issue before the court is a present controversy and is not moot.

The cause of action is one which “arises under” the Federal Constitution. This complaint alleges that the certification of an ineligible candidate to the office of the Presidency deprives Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter would is not justified, because the case can only be dismissed if the claim were “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579, or “frivolous,” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683.  That the claim is unsubstantial must be “very plain.” Hart v. Keith Vaudeville Exchange, 262 U.S. 271, 274, 369 U.S. 186.

Furthermore, this court has a duty to enjoin an unlawful election in any manner it deems appropriate.  Pursuant to 28 USC § 453, all members of the federal judiciary are required to take the following oath:

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

At stake here is the Constitution and the laws of the United States.  It is that simple.  Defendant Obama is in criminal violation of statutes governing the identity of federal officers (18 USC § 1001), as this record amply demonstrates.  There is one last opportunity to arrest the destruction of the constitutional republic, and it rests with this court.

Obama’s failure to properly register for the selective service system disqualifies him from every holding a position in the Executive branch of the United States, pursuant to 5 USC § 3328.  This court has a duty to uphold the federal law concerning this claim.

Plaintiffs face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury should an ineligible candidate be certified to the office of President.

            It is the very essence of things American that the Presidency be occupied by a person who is not just an American citizen, but who can establish that he is in fact a lawful American and a natural born citizen of the United States.  However, the critical harm here is the harm to the rule of law under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California, and the mandatory oath of office required by the statutes of the State of California for the Secretary of State, and the oath of office associated with this court.

All of these oaths will be violated if a candidate who is acting criminally to disguise his identity and who is not constitutionally authorized to hold the office of the Presidency is nonetheless certified by the Electoral College as duly elected.  If Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution has no meaning, than any and every clause of the Constitution is at risk.  That is a substantial threat of irreparable damage and injury.

Plaintiffs as electors (the Elector Plaintiffs) have a duty imposed on them to act lawfully in the casting of votes for the Presidency, and their lawful vote is vitiated entirely by electors who have voted for an illegal candidate for the office of President.  Plaintiffs as candidates for the office of President, have been deprived of equal protection under the law and a free and fair election for the office that has been usurped by Defendant Obama who is acting in criminal violation of federal law and in violation of applicable constitutional provisions to assert a claim for the office of the President.

Even the President must be accountable to the laws of the land, particularly the eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The vision that the founding fathers had of rule of law and equality before the law and no one above the law, that is a very viable vision, but instead of that, we have quasi mob rule. James Bovard.

The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing. Caroline Kennedy.

            When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society. Pope John Paul II.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. Ronald Reagan.

We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.
Leon Panetta.

The American people have a right to except that the rule of law will guarantee that even if we don’t like the policy, that it’s done properly.  Darrell Issa.

I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.
Sonia Sotomayor.

A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge’s only obligation – and it’s a solemn obligation – is to the rule of law. Samuel Alito.

One thing, however, is certain.  Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.  It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.  John Paul Stevens.

            Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.  Warren E. Burger.

            The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.  Samuel Adams.

            The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.  Dwight D. Eisenhower.

            A resilient people cherishing liberty and equality and the rule of law will endure.  Nick Rahall.

I am convinced that the majority of American people do understand that we have a moral responsibility to foster the concepts of opportunity, free enterprise, the rule of law, and democracy. They understand that these values are the hope of the world.  Richard Lugar

We stand in the shadow of Jefferson who believed that a society founded upon the rule of law and liberty was dependent upon public education and the diffusion of knowledge. Matt Blunt.

Unfortunately, the true force which propels our endless political disputes, our constant struggles for political advantage, is often not our burning concern for democracy, it is often of our dedication to the principle of the rule of law. Olusegun Obasanjo.

            The United States and the European Union do want to have a rule of law, and that rule of law should be for a fair trial. And that fair trial needs to have an impartial jury. Maria Cantwell.

The rule of law should be upheld by all political parties. They should neither advise others to break the law, nor encourage others to do so even when they strongly disagree with the legislation put forward by the government of the day. James Callaghan.

The balance of harms weighs in favor of Plaintiff.

            Plaintiffs have a right as electors and candidates for the Presidency to a free and fair election between eligible candidates, and this is a due process right guaranteed under the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The right to vote is regarded as a fundamental political right, because it is preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).  An ineligible candidate to an office has no articulable right in law or equity to that office, even if unanimously elected by the general population.

Plaintiffs, in strict reliance on the admissions against interest of Barack Hussein Obama as disclosed herein, and the record disclosed herein, have demonstrated that as a matter of law, that Defendant Obama has acted criminally to hide his true identity, that Defendant Obama has violated applicable federal law governing the identity of federal officers, that Defendant Obama has completely failed to demonstrate 1) lawful citizenship; 2) a lawful name; 3) a lawful birth site; 4) a lawful selective service registration; 5) a lawful social security number; and 6) natural born citizenship.  As a consequence, Defendant Obama does not meet the constitutional standards for eligibility.  Therefore, Defendant Obama has no articulable harm as a matter of law.  He simply returns to being a civilian.

The Court has more than once recognized the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 . It is beyond debate that freedom is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.  NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-461 (1958).

In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, the decisions of this Court recognize that abridgment of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 461 (1958).

The furtherance of an election that is fraudulent is violative of all liberty interests protected under the United States Constitution and creates an unimaginable harm to all political interests which have been protected in this nation since its founding, including the class of litigants sought to be certified hereunder.

The grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

            The public is served by having free and fair elections; elections where registered voters in California lawfully chose between candidates who are eligible to hold office.

ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS AND THIS COURT WILL BE GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE US CONSTITUTION, IF THE CETIFICATE OF VOTE IS CERTIFIED AND CITIZEN OF INDONESIA BARACK OBAMA IS ALLOWED TO BECOME THE US PRESIDENT

In 2008 the Plaintiffs did not have all the evidence which became available recently, however recently obtained  information  shows that

1. according to Obama’s school records he is a citizen of Indonesia.

2. according to his mother’s passport records his last name is Soebarkah

3. he is using a forged birth certificate

4. he is using a forged Selective Service Certificate

5. he is using a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

6. available school pictures and documents from Kaelani school in Hawaii show him residing in Hawaii at least until January 1969. his School records from assissi School in Jakarta, indonesia, show him under name Barry Soetoro residing inIndonesia from January 1967. as one human being cannot reside in two countries at the same time for a period of two years, it is clear that there are two distinctive individuals: Barry Obama, who resided in Hawaii and Barry Soetoro, who resided in Indonesia between 1067 and 1969. We have no idea which one of the two came back to the United States of America in and around 1971.    Since all the IDs represent forgeries, all of the defendants and this court will be committing HIGH TREASON, if they certify as the legitimate President and commander in Chief a foreign citizen with all forged IDs and a stolen/ fraudulently obtained Social Security number

IF THE DEFENDANTS AND THIS COURT CERTIFY OBAMA AS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT, WHILE POSSESSING ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AT HAND, THEY MAY BE LATER PROSECUTED AS BEING A PART OF A RICO, RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AMERICAN CITIZENS AND COMMIT FOLLOWING PREDICATE ACTS:

18, United  States Code:  section 1028 (relating to fraud  and related activity  in connection with identification documents, section 1341(relating to mail fraud),section 1343 (relating to  wire  fraud},section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully}, section 1426 (relating  to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section

1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers},  section 1503 (relating to obstruction of  justice}, section 1510  (relating to obstruction of  criminal  investigations}, section 1511(relating to the obstruction of State or local law  enforcement), section  1542  (relating to  false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport}, section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport),section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other documents, section  1952  (relating to  racketeering),   sections  2314 and  2315 (relating to  interstate transportation of stolen property},section 2320 (relating  to trafficking in goods or services bearing  counterfeit marks), (F) any  act  which  is  indictable  un_der  the  Immigration and Nationality Act,section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens),section 277 (relating  to aiding  or assisting certain  aliens to  enter  the  United  States).

This Court should act AS TO THE DEFENDANTS from making an election where the candidate who prevailed is ineligible to serve.  The preservation of the integrity of the voting system requires it.

CONCLUSION

The record before the court amply demonstrates that Defendant Obama is not eligible/not legitimate for the position of the U.S. Presidency.

Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate that the evidence proffered by Defendant Obama to date is falsified, and amounts to criminal falsification under applicable federal law as set forth herein.  Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that Obama’s failure to properly register for the selective service system has disqualified him from every holding the office of the President.  Plaintiffs have demonstrated and met their burden of proof to establish that Defendant Obama is operating under a fraudulent Social Security number. As a consequence, Defendant Obama does not meet the constitutional standards for eligibility.  Therefore, Defendant Obama has no articulable harm as a matter of law.  He simply returns to being a civilian.

Plaintiffs ask this court for extraordinary relief, in what can only be called extraordinary times.  Never before has the nation faced such an audacious usurpation of its offices, it laws, its constitutional protections, its rights, its freedom, even its very life as a Constitutional Republic.  While it is an extraordinary demand for relief, the times call for such extraordinary acts by this court as the very last bulwark of freedom in this country.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that if the Republic of the United States of America lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.

Respectfully submitted this 19 day of December, 2012.

__________________________________

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Proposed order

US District Court

For the Eastern District of California

 James Grinols, Robert Odden,  in their capacity  )Case #   12-cv-02997

as Presidential Electors                                             )MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

Edward C. Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, ) RESTRAINING ORDER

Keith Judd in their  capacity as                               )

candidates  for the U.S. President                         )

v Electoral College, President of the Senate,       )

Governor of California, Secretary of State          )

of California, U.S. Congress                                     )

)

)

Upon consideration of the Motion for TRO, Complaint, petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive relief incorporated by reference, attached exhibits and  responsive pleadings

Hearing on _____________________________________

this court ORDERS as follows

To Grant Temporary Restraining Order pending adjudication on the merits as follows: To ENJOIN:

1. Secretary of State and Governor from certifying the Certificate of Ascertainment due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the Commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

2.  The Electoral College from tallying their votes due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

3. governor of CA from forwarding the Certificate of Electoral Vote to the US Congress  due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

4. President of the Senate from presenting the Certificates of the Electoral Vote to the U.S. Congress due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

5. U.S. Congress from confirming the elections results due to lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office

6.  Defendant Barack Hussein Obama from taking the oath of office as a U.S. President on the inauguration day due to his lack of legitimacy for office and fraud committed by him, as the citizen of Indonesia Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah, due to his run for the U.S.  Presidency and position of the Commander in-Chief, while using a forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged selective Service certificate and a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  as a proof of his legitimacy and fitness for office.

Further adjudication on the merits will take place on_____________________________

So ordered and adjudged

______________________________________________________

Honorable Morrison C. England

Chief Judge U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

______________________________________________________

Dated

Affidavit of of Notice

I Orly Taitz, counsel on the case attest

1. complaint, summons and exhibits were served on the defendants by  sending aforementioned documents by overnight Federal express on 12.18.2012

2. Motion for TRO and attached Check list forms were served on the defendants by sending aforementioned documents by overnight Federal express on 12.19.2012

/s/  Dr Orly Taitz ESQ

12.19.2012

AFFIDAVIT OF IRREPARABLE HARM

Plaintiffs herein are Presidential Candidates and Presidential Electors.

P residential elections are being certified within days.

Oath of office of the new President will be taken next month.

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm of a lost election and inability to exercise a right to vote by the Presidential electors.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

counsel for Plaintiffs

Comments

• Search for:
• Tweet

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy

• Evidence on Barack Obama

  Obama File with Exhibits
  Affidavit of Paul Irey
  Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
  Obama file Exhibits 9-13
  Obama file Exhibits 14-21
  Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
  Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and Congress

• RSS Feed: Subscribe for Free RSS Feed

  

• ---

  PETITION TO CONGRESS:
  Ban importation of 200,000 Syrian migrants into the US

  

  ---

• Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day

  

• URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS

• OrlyTaitzEsq.com

  • Untitled

• TAITZ REPORT

  Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE
• 

• Official Facebook

  
  

• Recent Posts

  • (no title)

• IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!

  Historic DVD Now Available! DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling. --------- To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.

• Advertisement / Sponsors

  
  29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
  Ste 100
  Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
  orly.taitz @gmail. com
  (949) 766-7687
  
  
  --------------------------------------
  
  Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
  --------------------------------------
  
  

  Bumper Sticker
  $9.99 thru PayPal

  --------------------------------------
  
  
  --------------------------------------

  Orly Taitz Photo Collections

  
  

• April 2024

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  1	2	3	4	5	6	7
  8	9	10	11	12	13	14
  15	16	17	18	19	20	21
  22	23	24	25	26	27	28
  29	30

• Pages

  • #409755 (no title)
  • …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
  • …Grinols Subpoenas
  • ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
  • .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
  • 1. Judd v Obama
  • 2. Farrar v Obama
  • 3. Taitz v Sebelius
  • 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
  • 5. Taitz v Astrue
  • 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
  • 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
  • Videos
  • Video: Orly before NH Election Committee