Posted on | January 26, 2022 | 1 Comment
Category: Uncategorized
Comments
One Response to “”
Leave a Reply
-
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy
Evidence on Barack Obama
Obama File with Exhibits
Affidavit of Paul Irey
Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
Obama file Exhibits 9-13
Obama file Exhibits 14-21
Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and CongressPetition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE

Official Facebook
Recent Posts
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687

--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------

Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
Pages
- #409755 (no title)
- …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
- …Grinols Subpoenas
- ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
- .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
- 1. Judd v Obama
- 2. Farrar v Obama
- 3. Taitz v Sebelius
- 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
- 5. Taitz v Astrue
- 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
- 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
- Videos
- Video: Orly before NH Election Committee










January 27th, 2022 @ 8:13 am
The law is unconstitutional. The Supreme court has already ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania
319 U.S. 105 (1943), and in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969),that,
1. that you can not convert a right into a privilege and then charge to exercise that right.
2. that you cannot license a Constitutionally protected right.
In Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822, (even tho this was the State Supreme Court, the Sate never challenged the ruling by going to SCOTUS), the Kentucky Supreme Court stated, (excerpt)”And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and [Volume 5, Page 213] such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.”