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
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

Update on legal actions for 12.06.10- 104 days since my 60 B motion was filed with judge Royce Lamberth, no answer yet

Posted on | November 9, 2010 | 20 Comments

My 60 B motion for reconsideration in Taitz v Obama was filed in the U.S. District court for the District of Columbia on August 26. It has been 92 days, no answer from the Chief Justice for the District of Columbia Royce Lamberth yet.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Rhodes v  MacDonald, Obama et al was filed August 12. (it is docketed as Taitz -petitioner in Taitz v MacDonald et al). Obama’s response was due by November 24th Case #10-541.We are waiting for the date for the conference of all 9 Justices. Conference is expected at the  end of December-beginning of  January.

Appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al was filed in January. Obama’s response was received on October 12th.  Reply to the Appellee’s brief  was submitted. We are waiting for the decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A  TV program about my eligibility cases was transmitted to 120 million viewers in Europe. Link is below, you have to enter the number code provided, be patient, it takes long time to download

Орли, добрый день!!
Отправляю вам ссылку на сюжет!!

Там нужно набрать запрашиваемые цифры и затем нажать “Скачать”
Если что-то не получится, спрашивайте!!
С уважением,
Светлана Богачева
Телекомпания РЕН

Taitz v Dunn elections contest was filed in May, 2010. Case management conference was scheduled by judge Jeffrey Glass in the CA Superior Court  for January 10, 2011. Typically they schedule the mandatory settlement conference for 3 months after the case management conference, which would be in April, 2011. Trial is usually scheduled 3 months after the mandatory settlement conference, which would be in July 2011.

Wheels of justice grind slowly, let’s hope it all comes to trial and resolution before 2012 election.


20 Responses to “Update on legal actions for 12.06.10- 104 days since my 60 B motion was filed with judge Royce Lamberth, no answer yet”

  1. F.A. Leonetti
    November 9th, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

    Orly Taitz, Esq.:
    Excellent legal strategic approach.

    Like my loving Grandmother said,..”Frankie, you don’t have to keep all the bad bugs, relatives or friends out of your pantry. Just one at a time. That way they don’t get to many around you and you can go do other things that are more important.”

    Keep those ”bugs” busy Orly, they’ll think there are 200 of you and they’ll run like heck.

    Best Regards,
    F.A. Leonetti

  2. Hippy Biker
    November 9th, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

    I called Judge Lamberth’s office and asked why it has been 75 days without a reply on your latest brief. The clerk said that the case was closed. I asked how can the case be closed when he has not ruled on your brief and was told that the case was closed. When I pressed further, the person got short with me and then hung up. When I called again, I got someone else and they gave me the same answer.

    Every one of Orly’s supporters needs to call Judge Lamberth and keep the pressure on them. All of these judges are criminals supporting the regime of Obama!

  3. Veritas
    November 10th, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

    It is being reported on the Obama Release Your Records Website that already in 2003 the US SUPREME COURT affirmed VATTEL’s “LAW OF NATIONS” as part of US Domestic Law.

    It is clear in that document, if I am not mistaken, that NATURAL BORN, id est the CITIZENSHIP STATUS for PRESIDENT, must be based on JUS SOLIS (SOIL) and JUS SANGUINIS (Parentage). Obama doesn’t have that combination.

    Should he not even bother to return to America? What a gift to Democracy and to National albeit World Security!

    They have a SCRIBD file link as evidence of the 2003 decision!

  4. bob strauss
    November 10th, 2010 @ 7:49 pm

    Thought you might want to see this. bob

    jbjd, have you seen this memo? Talking points for answering constituents letters of concern.


    bob strauss: Our elected representatives are not experts in all things and so, I am pleased to see they are seeking out information from our LoC. However, there is a glaring error in this memo. The ‘researcher’ purports to conclude Obama is a natural born citizen as those terms are expressed in the Naturalization Act of 1790 as long as he was born here. But that 1790 Act was replaced in 1795 so as to remove the words “natural born,” inasmuch as those are terms of art which are a Constitutional restriction on Presidential eligibility and not on a legislative structure for citizenship. http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=537 (Thanks for sending this to the blog; the comments were disengaged on Scribd.) (bob (and Readers), please forward this corrected information to the named LoC researcher.) ADMINISTRATOR
    P.S. bob, I want to further clarify my answer. See, the researcher in the LoC wrongly referenced in his memo to Congress, the definition of the phrase “natural born” as it appeared in the Naturalization Act of 1790. However, that law was repealed five years later and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795, taking out the words “natural born.” By so doing, the legislature was tacitly admitting, it had overstepped its lawful authority to define this restriction on Presidential eligibility. I proposed that people send this correct citation to the 1795 law, to that LoC researcher, letting him know, (we know) he made a mistake. Further, whoever sends such a note to this researcher could ask him to amend the incorrect answer he previously provided to members of Congress, who had asked for the research.

  5. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 11th, 2010 @ 3:10 am

    can you tell me the name of the case?

  6. chum lee
    November 11th, 2010 @ 4:43 am

    He probably is thinking of Alvarez-Machain. It has long been held that the law of nations is US law, but Veritas is confusing the term Law of Nations which means inyternational law with the book Law of Nations. The term has been around for a good 500 or so years.

    If the Supreme’s said the book was domestic law, I think the entire name of the book or author would have been mention when making the declaration.

    Just put Vattel in your legal research search engine (lexis or westlaw) to find how it was used in 2003.

  7. Thomas Cory
    November 11th, 2010 @ 5:38 am

    Mrs. Taitz, I have been watching as many Eligibility Court cases as Humanly possible. And when you said “Wheels of Justice Grind Slowly”, it struck a nerve.
    Your case, or no other case involving Soetoro/Obama will EVER see the light of day.
    Because of this simple phrase Orley :
    THEY are the LAW… They will do as THEY want.
    Anything you file against these people will just be burried, I’m sorry but that is just the truth.

  8. bob strauss
    November 11th, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

    It was a lawyer for the library of Congress, on a letter designed to inform members of congress,stating Obama is NBC because of the wording in an act from 1790. That act was repealed, and replaced with the act of 1795 which left out the words “natural born”.



  9. Ted
    November 11th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm


    The Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, and the 111th Congress have repeatedly prevented themselves from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise).

    Since Article II establishes the qualifying prerequisite to serve as President of the United States and I am pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” I respectfully request whether your office deems that in the 112th Congress I will be governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, I believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen.”

    Thank you.

  10. Politijabber
    November 11th, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

    What’s the matter, Orly? Don’t want to post my comment that demonstrates that Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off point?

  11. bob strauss
    November 12th, 2010 @ 7:41 am
  12. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 12th, 2010 @ 10:55 am

    no, I actually keep it for myself for briefing. Thank you for sending it to me

  13. chum lee
    November 12th, 2010 @ 11:09 am

    Politjabber: considering Alvarez is the most signifigant opinion regarding the use of international law since The Paquette Habana, every scholar of the laws of nations knows it already.

  14. Alec
    November 13th, 2010 @ 7:43 am

    Why not just come out with it and state that you wish to see the US constitution abolished by devious, illegal means? If you wished to see these US ruled under Constitutional law, then you would use whatever knowledge or skills you may have in order to help restore the rule of constitutional law, rather than try to undermine Dr. Taitz’ efforts. So, come on, be honest, admit it: you know full well that Obama is not eligible, but you don’t care because you wish to see the Constitution set aside by coup d’etat.

  15. bob strauss
    November 13th, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

    More info.

    Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al: Treason, Sedition, Scheme to defraud… (Updated Filing)


  16. Politijabber
    November 13th, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

    Alec, eat shit. My patriotism is beyond cavil. I’m interested in seeing that law is understood and correctly applied — something that you apparently have no interest in. You clearly lack the skills to perform research and comprehend the issues and rulings, that is your problem not mine. I have 26 years of practice in the United States courts to back up my expertise. Tell me, what do you have? My guess is that all you can bring to the discourse is your two years as a Barcalounger lizard!

  17. Alec
    November 13th, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

    So, with your 26 years of practice in the United States courts to back up your expertise, what part of Natural Born Citizen do you not understand? The part about not being a British subject at birth? Or, the part about being an Indonesian citizen during childhood? Or the part about using questionable Social Security numbers? Or the part about transparency in vital records? Since your patriotism is beyond cavil, and you have so much expertise and masterful command of vocabulary, why not use it to resolve these questions, using the law correctly applied as you say? Perhaps you could pitch in pro bono and help Alan Keyes or one of the other hundreds of plaintiffs with their cases, since they are up against an army of attorneys and millions of dollars. I’m headed to the barcalounge,
    P.S., Oh yeah, and what do I have? I have a long form birth certificate, school records, a unique Social Security number, and all that other stuff.

  18. tom
    November 13th, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

    Even if one wants to argue that the Nat Act of 1790 makes one a natural born citizen This “fact” would NOT necessary make the individual in question a natural born Citizen ‘for Constitutional purposes’ And this is current U.S. LAW FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL
    “…natural born citizen pursuant to a statute..”
    B.O. Jr is, if born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen mother and a foreign national father, at best, a STATUTORY U.S. CITIZEN alas NOT an ARTICLE II NBC

  19. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    November 14th, 2010 @ 6:13 am

    Great comeback. The issue is, that Politijabber and so many Obama supporters, who write comments on this blog (Raicha, Chum Lee and others) don’t really care about the Costitution, rule of law or system of justice. They care only about maintaining this regime by any and all means necessary. Recently I talked to a prominent CA attorney. He is a Democrat, as most trial lawyers are, he was in practice for over 30 years and he told me: “Orly, after 30 years of living in courts I can tell you, if justice is ever served, it is purely by accident”.

  20. Politijabber
    November 14th, 2010 @ 7:13 am

    No Orly. We care about the rule of law, and in this case it is working. You don’t like it, but the courts are applying the law. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an Obama supporter, but what we are is knowledgeable in the law. We understand the Constitution, we understand the long string of precedents that devastate your arguments, we are familiar with the rules of procedure and evidence. Thus, we are able to predict — with 100% accuracy — how birther cases will decided.

Leave a Reply