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


Update SCOTUS Easterling et al resubmitted today-Application for stay

Posted on | June 4, 2009 | 20 Comments

application

Comments

20 Responses to “Update SCOTUS Easterling et al resubmitted today-Application for stay”

  1. P. Barnett
    June 4th, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

    Thank you Orly!! Good news!! Stay safe!!

  2. judie newberg
    June 4th, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

    we are praying that the Truth comes out !

  3. redd
    June 4th, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
  4. Judith Bailey
    June 4th, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

    What offices can I call that will make a difference. I have emailed Dr.
    Coburn and asked him to schedule a meeting with Dr. Taitz. How much longer do we have to wait until this man is removed. I have call all of my representatives and two of my Democratic senators. Is there someone in the Republican Party that will listen. And why haven’t we heard anything from the Supreme Court. The Judge that accepted papers from you and said that he would get back with you. Can we call the Supreme Court Judges?

  5. Edward Paard
    June 4th, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

    Dr Orly. I saw this case and thought I would bring it to your attendion.

    http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html

    “Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

    Under the UCL, courts have held that a plaintiff must show that a representation was “likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.”

    Would it be possible for you to file against obama under this act? After all, the arguement would be that the consumer – being the California voter – did not get the product (obama) that was advertized. And that the product was likely to decieve a reasonable consumer. So cant you or some other patriot file under this act in California?

    Thank you

  6. bob strauss
    June 4th, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

    Nice job! Short and to the point. Can’t wait for their response.

  7. DB
    June 4th, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

    Dr. Orly,

    WOW!!!

    GO FOR IT!!!

  8. Carrie4Christ
    June 4th, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

    Dear Dr. Taitz,

    Once again I find myself awed by your tenacity and total unwillingness to submit to tyranny! I think you’re absolutely right in that Justice Souter’s imminent retirement makes him the prime candidate to champion this cause. As you have so astutely observed, “he has nothing to lose” and has proven himself in the past to be a “free thinker”. Every day I pray Souter will do what is RIGHT and FAIR and JUST and deliver you to the floor of the Supreme Court where you will make HISTORY and I just know that one day soon my prayers and the prayers of millions of other Americans will be answered!!!

    I hope that you will take the time to enjoy the sweetness of your tremendous accomplishments with your loved ones and sleep well knowing the Lord watches over you and considers you a beloved SERVANT of HIS WILL!

    God Bless Dr. Taitz!!!!

  9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 4th, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

    AmeliaI don’t have your phone number

  10. de Vattel: A natural born citizen is born in the country of parentS who are citizens thereof
    June 5th, 2009 @ 1:16 am

    To the point and common sensicle. To allow these appointments to go through, withotu vetting Obama’s eligibility would be the complete surrender and betrayal of the SCOTUS’s responsibility to protect the Constitution, since without even one of these there is no longer any manner of lawfully obtaining a quo warrento proceeding, with unbiased judges / or us attorney…

  11. Eric
    June 5th, 2009 @ 9:38 am

    In reading the Federalist Papers I find the SCOTUS in deed does and must examine the qualifications issue based on whether there was a lawful vetting.

    The qualifications are clearly stated in Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

    Federalist 80, The powers of the judiciary, do clearly state the authority of the court. In particular “2d, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union;”.

    It would seem obvious that any challenge to the qualifications of a candidate would go to a lower court however the fact that the lower courts jurisdictions have been obviously negated by a bias or other perversion since they have unduly allowed delays until the candidate is now sitting as POTUS without showing qualifications as per the article 2 section 1 requirement. This now is a test of the constitution directly and should bar any lower court from ruling since it is now dealing with an infraction of the constitution by a branch of government not a citizen/ candidate. The execution of article 2 section 1 is now the duty and obligation of the SCOTUS.

    Orly, SCOTUS must hear the case if it challenges the “execution” of the qualifications clause. Quite simply there is no entity required to execute the qualifications clause and that would indicate that petitioning the court for that execution would be sufficient to cause the court to review the qualifications. There does not need to be an injury since it is a matter falling under the “execution of the provisions of the constitution” not the illegal act of some person or agent of government or state. No one entity is at fault since no entity is charged with the duty to qualify a candidate or president. It is a constitutional provision.

  12. Jim Suiter
    June 5th, 2009 @ 10:53 am

    Dr Taitz how come the officials of HAWAII THAT SAW AND READ OBAMAS BC cannot be charged withholding evidence of obama`s crimes???
    They know where he was born…………………………Thank you Orly for
    every thing you are doing…………Keep up the fight……….

    Jim Suiter

  13. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 5th, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

    call me 949-683-5411

  14. Anonymouse
    June 5th, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

    Orly, this article includes:

    [[ Thomas E. Lauria, the attorney who represented the rights of dissident bondholder in the Chrysler Chapter 11 filing, has agreed to work with GM Bondholders Unite in representing the thousands of individual GM bondholders who say they have been systematically excluded from the negotiating table. ]]

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=298553

    Have you been able to contact Lauria and suggest to him that he litigate from the angle that Obama is likely INELIGIBLE to legislate anything regarding Chrysler or General Motors (or any issue whatsoever)? And that Lauria should demand to see proof of Obama’s eligibility?

    Any idea where Gary Kreep has gone? Before the election, he said (in a WorldNetDaily article) he was going to challenge, on the grounds of ineligibility, Obama’s attempts to legislate. Has he tried?

  15. Julie
    June 5th, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

    I presume you served this on all parties, right? Because an application for stay requires compliance with Rule 22. See Rule 23.3 (“The form and content of an application for a stay are governed by Rules 22 …”).

    “22.2. The original and two copies of any application addressed to an individual Justice shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2, and shall be accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29.”

  16. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 5th, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

    yes Jule, I did. If you are an attorney or paralegal or legal secretary, I will appreciate any help. keep in mind I am doing everything pro bono. A lot of people are writing just to show how great they are (I don’t mean you), many are saying they are patriots, however there are probably 2 million attorneys in this country, but aside from me and Mr. Apuzo and Mr. Kreep nobody is doing anything productive. I see a lot of people with big egos doing nothing

  17. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 5th, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

    can you get in touchwith him?

  18. Dave
    June 6th, 2009 @ 2:59 am
  19. Mik Taerg
    June 6th, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

    Oh Orly !

    please call the corrupt official Yokuba of Hawaii she just posted this BS on the Honolulu Star

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    Born identity
    Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations

    By June Watanabe

    POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009

    Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

    Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

    The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

    And, it’s only available in electronic form.

    Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

    “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

    Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

    “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.

    Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

    “The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

    Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

    Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

  20. Dr. Glenn Waite
    June 7th, 2009 @ 11:15 am

    Has the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the state’s (Hawaii) current certification fo live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”? Where is the published case law?