WND article
Posted on | June 23, 2009 | 12 Comments
WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit https://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=101889

Monday, June 22, 2009
BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Hearing set on default in Obama eligibility case
Judge asks for 2nd confirmation that president notified of case
Posted: June 22, 2009
10:05 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
![]() Dr. Orly Taitz |
A judge in California has scheduled a July 13 hearing in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president in which the plaintiffs’ attorney, Orly Taitz, says the commander-in-chief is in default.
Taitz told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”
Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation.
“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.
“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.
“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.
“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.
Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.
Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.
She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.
“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.
“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”
She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.
“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?
“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.
“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”
As WND reported in a profile on Taitz, she was born in the Republic of Moldova which used to be part of the Soviet Union.
Recalling her life under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.

She confirms she is not willing to let the issue rest on a single case and has filed multiple complaints in an effort to reach her goal. She previously took her complaint directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and when the justices met privately with the defendant – Obama – but didn’t explain their rejection of her dispute, she approached two different justices in public settings, asking them to consider the case.
She has likened not only the U.S. judiciary to the old Soviet Union establishment because of its unwillingness to resolve the dispute, but she’s accused members of the media of becoming like the Soviet press, because they push for Obama’s agenda.
The question over Obama’s eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
![]() “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard in Pennsylvania |
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard “long-form” birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
Comments
12 Responses to “WND article”














29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 

June 23rd, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
You GO GIRL….kick their you know what!!!
June 23rd, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
allegations are “garbage,” so say Obama. I think what he really means is he thinks the Constitution is “garbage” and he treats it as such. Actions speak louder than “just words”. If he cared about the Constitution he would have released these records immediately and willingly. He has the same contempt for WE THE PEOPLE and I mean all Americans past, present and future.
June 23rd, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
Thank you Bennie
June 24th, 2009 @ 1:16 am
Is there some significance to having filed this case on Jan 20th?
He was either president or president-elect on that day.
Does one matter more than the other if you’re suing him as an individual?
Which one was he served as?
June 24th, 2009 @ 3:16 am
Re: “since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.’
Not true. First, at the time Obama was born no foreign birth certificates could be registered. That was not allowed until 1982, about twenty years after his birth. So there could not be a foreign birth certificate in his file.
Second, even today, when Hawaii can accept foreign birth certificates and issue Hawaii birth certificates to people born outside of Hawaii, the Hawaii birth certificate is not allowed to lie about the place of birth. Thus, if a person is born in Mexico, the Hawaii certificate must say something like: “Hawaii birth certificate. Place of Birth: Mexico.”
Oh, and by the way, the short-form birth certificate, known as a Certification of Live Birth, is now the only birth document Hawaii issues, and it is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.
June 25th, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Mark Levin FINALLY mentioned Obama’s birth certificate yesterday. He called for Obama to release it
June 26th, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Regarding the acceptability of a COLB as a substitute for a Birth Certificate.
‘Contents’ means all.
A COLB is not ‘copies of the contents’……….. it is ‘part thereof’.
Therefore a COLB is not satisfactory as ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’
There are THREE different forms that ‘the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant’.
They are, ‘a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.’
In (b) of Hawaiian Statute 338-13 it is clear that a COLB is not included as ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’.
Hawaiian Statute.
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
June 27th, 2009 @ 6:24 am
EXPOSE the usurper Bastard now so he can be removed from office to save the USA
June 27th, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
[Quote=Orly Taitz]
He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
[/End Quote]
One of “Obama’s” shady pals at the White House will probably call one of “Obama’s” shady pals at the Saudi Embassy and say “Hey, BlackBarry needs a big bag of quite money”.