OrlyTaitzESQ.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
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



You have to read this part of the order of Judge England. He put on paper what he said during the temporary restraining order hearing. They just refuse to use any common sense and point to each other: a judge points to Congress, Congress points to the courts and the criminal with all forged IDs continues to usurp the U.S. Presidency. Noteworthy is that he never stated that Obama has any valid papers

Posted on | January 16, 2013 | 17 Comments

 

At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that “common-sense” demands the Court interpret the United States Constitution as requiring the President of the United States to have a valid birth certificate, social security number, and selective service certificate. However, in deciding the merits of a case, the Court cannot simply rely on suspicions and what Plaintiffs claim is “common sense.” To be clear, the Court understands that “common sense,” has its place in the political process. However, courts must base their decisions on the Constitution, statutes, rules, and regulations passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. Accordingly, in the present case, the Court must look to the Constitutional requirements

to serve as the President of the United States. Article II provides that the President must be: (1) a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States when the states ratified the Constitution; (2) at least thirty-five years old; and (3) a United States resident for fourteen years. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.

4 Article II does not require the President (or a candidate for President) to present his short-form birth certificate, long-form birth certificate, social security card, or any form of identification, to anyone.

Moreover, since 2009, when President Obama was first inaugurated, no laws have been enacted to make proof of “natural born citizen[ship]” a requirement under the law. In short, Plaintiffs have not provided any legal support for their proposition that a presidential candidate must provide a copy of his or her birth certificate or any other documentation to be eligible for office. The Court is not the popularly elected branch of government constitutionally empowered to pass new laws. Because the Court must base its decisions on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and no law exists that requires the President to present proof of natural born citizenship, the Court cannot require that President Obama present, or even possess, such documentation.

///

4

 

The relevant portion of Article II, Section 1 originally provided: “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II,

§ 1, cl. 5.5ase 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/16/13 Page 6 of 13 

As such, Plaintiffs cannot show that they have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim. If Plaintiffs want the law to require the President to present such documentation, Plaintiffs must lobby Congress—the branch of government that is constitutionally empowered to pass new laws—and not the Court, to draft and enact a

bill incorporating their desired requirements.Further, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama has committed treason, fraud, and conspiracy to fabricate proof that he is a natural born American citizen. (ECF Nos. 12 and 30.) Again, Plaintiffs’ relief here does not lie in federal courts because the Constitution assigns it to another branch of government. If Plaintiffs believe that President Obama has violated the law, their remedy is to alert Congress to the alleged violation of the law. Congress could then initiate impeachment proceedings with the aid of an independent and special prosecutor. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5; U.S. Const. art. I,

§ 3, cl. 6; U.S. Const. art. I, § 7.

Comments

17 Responses to “You have to read this part of the order of Judge England. He put on paper what he said during the temporary restraining order hearing. They just refuse to use any common sense and point to each other: a judge points to Congress, Congress points to the courts and the criminal with all forged IDs continues to usurp the U.S. Presidency. Noteworthy is that he never stated that Obama has any valid papers”

  1. American Fan of Orly
    January 16th, 2013 @ 7:26 pm

    Dr. Taitz,

    I am of the view, that this excerpt of the transcript is sufficient to demand a hearing by a new judge, because it shows unfair bias. Ginols et al sued several parties, one of which was O as a candidate for president, but in this except England repeatedly presents the argument as if what is asked are the release of presidential documents, and speaks of O as President. That is a false presentation of the facts and the law, and thus proof of his prejudice in favor of defendants…

  2. BirtherPro
    January 16th, 2013 @ 9:19 pm

    Bunch of double-talk.

    He conceeds that NATURAL BORN is a constitutional requirement, yet refuses to allow any means to verify that he is even a “CITIZEN”. (can’t be “natural born” if you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN)

    And since Hawaii DOH 338 – 17.8 does NOT REQUIRE PROOF of Date-of-Birth, Obama’s Date-of-Birth was NOT included on Hawaii’s “Verification of Birth” to AZ SOS.

    I submit that “verification” is INVALID on it’s face because the document itself is UNDATED and RUBBER STAMP SIGNED (with initials of someone unknown).

    And the verification only uses the words “indicate” and “information matches” instead of CERTIFY and TRUE & ACCURATE.

    BTW, a careful reading of the transcript (of the LFBC presentation) reveals it was a SCAM BAIT & SWITCH back to the original 2008 COLB.

    Instead of emphasizing the new LFBC, it was said 8X that “THE” president’s legal birth document was the 2008 COLB, (which could have been produced via Hawaii DOH 338 – 17.8), which WOULD have produced the NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS.

  3. Tom Cooke
    January 16th, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

    Since the Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, how does the court suppose one is to prove that one is a NBC? Is he just to say I am a NBC and that makes it fact? Or, like any other job in the government in which a birth certificate is required, how does one deduce that only the highest job does not require a birth certificate. Again, in this judges mind, how does one prove he is an NBC?

    Since their is a law concerning one must have a selective service registration (non-forged), I see this so called judge did not approach that issue.

  4. will
    January 16th, 2013 @ 10:38 pm

    ihv i have to wonder how many judges have actually read and understand the constitution..

    so far it appear they have no idea what its even for….

    paid off judges brings no justice.. they need to be removed
    will

  5. Bill F.
    January 17th, 2013 @ 12:13 am

    To be Constitutionally eligible, you do not have to use your real name.
    You do not need to provide a real birth place.
    You do not need to provide a real birth date.
    You do not need to provide any residency confirmation.

    I don’t understand how someone can prove he qualifies. Politics and honesty are polar opposites. We are supposed to believe whatever Barry Soetoro says as the truth? Not likely.

    If you use a SS number that was never legally issued to you, that’s not really “illegal” until you actually start collecting money.

    Posting an obviously counterfeit long form birth certificate on the WhiteHouse.gov website must not be a crime either.
    The silly jokester probably got a “time out”, or a promotion.

  6. usapatriot
    January 17th, 2013 @ 5:26 am

    I say we FLOOD the Supreme Court with letters (not emails) before they meet with you on Feb. 15th. And buy the Forever stamps now before they go up next week!!

  7. Thomas
    January 17th, 2013 @ 6:43 am

    PERSONALLY… I suggest we gather ALL JUDGES,POLITICIANS,and IGNORANT ATTORNEYS assisting in this CHARADE and Waterboard them!
    Until WE THE PEOPLE get the Truth.
    I’m Sick and Tired of these Elitist looking down on ME, and those other REAL AMERICANS who know THE TRUTH!
    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
    government.” — Thomas Jefferson.

  8. karen blehm
    January 17th, 2013 @ 11:25 am

    I cannot fathom how we could know whether or not a candidate meets the requirements without valid documentation.

  9. Frank Parks
    January 17th, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

    What SS# did Obama use when he received his pay as President? Did he not need to have a SS# when applied he for the job? If I were to use a fake SS# when appling for a job, what would be my penalty? Just wandering. Thank you and GOD bless you Dr. Orly.

  10. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    January 17th, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

    don’t you get it, he does not give a damn. They simply kick the can

  11. james
    January 17th, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

    I have read this twice and cant find the wording posted at the top can anyone tell me page and line this was stated? It seems to me we should be going after the democratic party for not vetting their candidate before having him run. Are not they responsible for that? He is their candidate let them prove who he his. Would this take it out of the governments hands to decide and give it back to the courts?

  12. ch
    January 17th, 2013 @ 5:16 pm

    They say the Constitution does not require the candidate to provide birth certificate, etc. I would counter argue with the paperwork from the political parties, showing their statements “our candidate is eligible according to the Constitution.” The “candidate” can try to get by with what lies he can, but the political parties have charters and laws for selecting their candidates. You need to get the bylaws of the major political parties and how they select candidates, and how they have removed candidates or disqualified them. That is where the “vetting” has happened. Obama lied his way through the system, and the political parties began to lie also. But you can probably find their bylaws and how they qualify “according to the Constitution. While the Constitution does not say what has to be provided, a citizen can challenge qualifications, and that is the point of Obama having to prove himself. When he was found to commit a felony, this is a criminal act, and separate from running for President. You should prosecute him and the political parties for using forged documents, as a separate issue from “running for President.” Just some thoughts. What is the protocol for finding a person using forged documents. If a president is found participating in forgery, which is proven first, then it is justification for removal. I would think.

  13. Darrell Williams
    January 19th, 2013 @ 6:13 am

    Dr. Taitz,

    The petition below requesting a definition for a “Natural Born Citizen” was originally filed this past November to the Whitehouse.gov “We The People” website. Unfortunately we only obtained 101 signatures of the 150 required for it to be posted for the public to see. If I could receive your permission to post the link to obtain the first 150 signatures I will gladly resubmit the petition. Even if the White House takes no action at least we will be increasing public awareness which is a good thing.

    This is a ‘bipartisan’ petition concerning asking the US Supreme Court to define the term “natural born citizen”. It does not matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party, Any Party, No Party, etc…..This is an issue that needs to be resolved for future generations of Americans.
    ———————————————————–
    Here is the (revised) petition:

    “We Petition The Obama Administration To:

    Ask the United States Supreme Court to define the term “Natural Born Citizen” as presented in our U.S. Constitution .

    Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution :

    “ No person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in our Constitution and consequently has led to much discord and disharmony among the American people. This became an issue with President Chester A. Arthur and more recently then Senator Barack H. Obama and Senator John McCain. Members of the U.S. Congress have made several attempts to have the phrase removed from our Constitution with no success.

    A concise clear definition of the term ” Natural Born Citizen” by the Supreme Court is needed to prevent this issue from arising in future presidential elections.”
    ——————————————————————–

    Thank You

  14. Darrell Williams
    January 19th, 2013 @ 8:22 am

    Dr. Taitz,

    I see you approved my post. Does that mean I can post the link here if I resubmit the petition to the Whitehouse.gov “We The People” website?

    Thanks

  15. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    January 19th, 2013 @ 8:23 am

    yes

  16. Darrell Williams
    January 19th, 2013 @ 8:34 am

    Thank you Dr. Taitz.

  17. Darrell Williams
    January 19th, 2013 @ 9:47 am

    “Natural Born Citizen” Petition

    We need your help to get the necessary 150 signatures for this petition to be placed on the public White House “We The People” website.

    Here is the link:

    http://wh.gov/mV6c

    Here is the petition:

    We Petition The Obama Administration To:

    Ask the United States Supreme Court to define the term “Natural Born Citizen” as presented in our U.S. Constitution.

    Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution:

    “No person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in our Constitution and consequently has led to much discord and disharmony among the American people. This became an issue with President Chester A. Arthur and more recently then Senator Barack H. Obama and Senator John McCain. Members of the U.S. Congress have made several attempts to have the phrase removed from our Constitution with no success.

    A concise clear definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” by the Supreme Court is needed to prevent this issue from arising in future presidential elections.”

Leave a Reply