Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto: Taitz has presented a mountain of evidence showing that Obama committed fraud in his assertion of eligibility to U.S. presidency.

ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:34 PM 

On September 15, 2010 Steven Breyer, Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared on CNN Larry King show. When asked whether he will attend future “State of the Union” addresses in light of Barack Obama’s verbal attack on the Justices of the Supreme Court during the last “State of the Union Address”, Justice Breyer wisely responded, that he will attend, that the public needs to know, that they are protected, that these judges and this court will protect even ones that are not popular, institutions that are not popular, that this document (meaning U.S. Constitution o.t.) protects them. He proceeded by reminiscing about his trip to Russia in 1993. He was invited by Boris Yeltsin to a meeting with thousands of judges from all over Russia to assist them in building a new fledgling democracy after years of Marxist tyranny. Yeltsin promised those judges, that he would protect them from “telephone justice”. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer was on hand to assure thousands of Russian judges that democracy is possible, that real justice is possible.

In the case at hand the plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz is specifically the type of individual described by Justice Bryer. She is an attorney, who previously represented active members of US military, requesting verification of eligibility of Barack Obama as a Commander in Chief in light of the mountain of evidence, showing lack of proper vital records for such eligibility. She is that unpopular individual, greatly unpopular with the Obama administration, who was damaged. She became a victim of a form of “telephone justice”. The only way for her to get compensation for damages suffered, to be made whole, is to proceed with her legal action for fraud committed by Barack Obama prior to election. While this court previously found no particularized damages, in her FRCP 60 B motion Taitz presented new evidence of particularized damages suffered recently, new evidence of fraud committed by Obama and a nexus between those damages and fraud committed.

This case is akin to Horn v Huddle,647 F.Supp 2d (DDC 2009) and 699F. Supp. 2d (DDC 2010), where just last year, both the DC circuit court of Appeals and Your Honor reinstated a case, where an individual was harmed by actions of the Federal Government and CIA and by “fraud on the court” committed by top federal officials and an attorney representing the federal government. In the current case Taitz was damaged and had to pay $20,000 in sanctions, after she was threatened by the Department of Justice with her home will be subject to sale to cover this lien and all of her bank records were subpoenaed by the Federal government as a result of fraud committed by Obama and a cover up by some attorneys of the Department of Justice. In Horn v Huddle, Your Honor requested that top federal officials and attorneys provide justification, why sanctions should not be assessed against them for “fraud on the court”. In this case, similar “Misrepresentations to this Court that were material and intentional ” were committed and similar questions should be posed to Obama and the US Attorney’s office.

August 1 2010 the State Department released to the public some of passport records of Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. It clearly shows that Obama was listed on those records under name Soebarkah, not Obama. There is no evidence of Obama ever officially changing his name from Soebarkah to Obama, therefore he took an oath of office as US president under a name not legally his, which makes his oath invalid. Taitz could not obtain those records, as Department of Justice refused to cooperate in her prior cases, or in prior FOIA requests, however this information was readily available to the attorneys of the Department of Justice. This information provides a necessary confirmation and link to a previously released AP(Associated Press) report of Obama’s school registration in Indonesia, where he is listed as Indonesian citizen. This fits with the fact that recently released immigration file of his stepfather, citizen of Indonesia Lolo Soetoro, contain redaction of some 11 pages in the interest of privacy, while due to the fact that Lolo Soetoro and his immigration sponsor, his wife Ann Dunham, are legally deceased, provide no justification for redaction, since there is no consideration of privacy of deceased individuals. The only consideration of privacy can be a cover up of the fact that Barack Obama used a different last name and was part of the immigration file of Lolo Soetoro. This would negate his claim of Natural Born Citizen status, a necessary prerequisite for U.S. presidency. This new information provides a necessary link to the fact that the released Dunham – Obama divorce agreement contains a missing page and Dunham-Soetoro divorce agreement states that the couple has two children, which is an indication of adoption of Obama by Lolo Soetoro, since Sotoro and Dunham had only one biological child, Maya Soetoro, who was born in 1970, long after Soetoro’s immigration papers were submitted to INS.

It, also, shows an egregious pattern of fraud and intent to cover up by Obama, which ultimately led to Taitz damages, since in his Illinois bar application Obama states, that he did not use other names. However, recently released 1969 passport records ( Exhibit 1 ) show that he went by the name Soebarkah and his School registration from Indonesia (Exhibit 2) shows him using name Barry Soetoro.

A. Defendant did not provide opposition to the merits of the motion and therefore conceded the motion. Defendant intentionally misrepresented the case in order to confuse the court.

Defense intentionally misrepresented to the court the main point of 60B motion, namely the fact that Taitz suffered $20,000 damage as proximate cause and foreseeable result of fraud committed by Obama.

Previously this court ruled that Taitz did not have standing, due to the fact that her damages were generalized, not particularized. Defendant claims that the fact that Taitz was sanctioned $20,000 when Judge Land believed Obama’s assertions of being legitimate and ruled that challenge of this assertion is frivolous “lacks any articulated or plausible connection to the actions of Defendant.”

This statement represents misrepresentation of the facts, made simply because the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, making the shots in this defense is not acting as a U.S. Attorney representing the people of the United States, but rather as a private attorney for Mr. Obama, defending him in the matter of fraud committed before the election.

Taitz has presented a mountain of evidence showing that Obama committed fraud in his assertion of eligibility to U. S. presidency. Evidence previously submitted include the transcript of the March 25 th session of the Assembly of Kenya, when James Orengo, Minister of Lands, clearly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

Affidavits of three licensed investigators, including John Sampson, retired senior Deportation Officer from the Department of Homeland Security show that Obama has been using, for most of his life, Social Security number 042-68-4425, issued to another individual in the state of CT. An affidavit of one of the top forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the short version abbreviated Certification of Live Birth, obtained by Obama recently, in 2007, and posted on the Internet, cannot be evidence of birth in HI withtout seeing the original with the name of the doctor, name of the hospital and signature, that Obama refuses to release in spite of over 100 legal actions filed and reportedly $1.7 million spent to keep those basic documents sealed. Taitz was damaged by $20,000 in sanctions due to the fact that Judge Land believed fraudulent statements by Obama and believed that the challenge is frivolous. The only way for Taitz to proceed is in a legal action for fraud, unsealing the records, showing that Obama indeed committed fraud, therefore Taitz’s actions were not frivolous and Taitz is entitled to these proximately related and foreseeable damages suffered as a result of fraud committed by Obama. Taitz clearly satisfied requirement of the damage to be not conjectural and hypothetical, not generalized but particularized, as required by Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Until now the court could rule that the damages were conjectural, however after Taitz’s payment of $20,000,- the damage became actual and particularized. The clear cause for those damages was fraud committed by Obama, the chain of causation was not broken, the actions by Judge Land were foreseeable.

Now the defendant does not claim lack of particularized damages, but rather claims lack of nexus Defendant’s opposition no longer claim lack of damages, but rather claims lack of nexus.

Taitz submitted new evidence, that was not available previously, namely the fact that a newly released passport of Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Obama, show him under the name Soebarkah. While previously one might have had doubts about fraud being performed, new evidence of his use of a different last name, while in Indonesia, shows that fraud indeed was committed and gives more weight to previously submitted school registration for Barack Obama, showing him as a citizen of Indonesia. …continued below on page 7. Exhibits in PDF format can be viewed here.

Previous reports on Attorney Taitz can be viewed here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama’s eligibility; [https://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto – Reply to Opposition to 60 B Motion – 9/23/2010