Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Tomorrow at 2pm hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes MD in GA
September 10th, 2009
I just got word from Ms. Sweeden, clerk for District Court Judge for the Middle District of GA. We were granted an emergency hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes, MD, flight surgeon, who is scheduled to be shipped to Iraq day after tomorrow on September the 12th. Capt Rhodes states that she is willing to go to Iraq, as long as she knows that the orders going down the chain of command are lawful orders. We asked this case to be certified as a class action case, as she represents a whole class of plaintiffs situated in similar position. The hearing will be tomorrow at 2pm in Columbus GA, Federal Building 1201 12th street. Judge Clay D. Land courtroom. Judge Land was gracious and a real Southern gentleman in that he waived the technical requirement of a signature of the local counsel as a contact.

I hope that members of the military and other patriots of this country will be in the courtroom to support Cpt. Rhodes MD.

I will be making my travel arrangements shortly.
_________________

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Tomorrow at 2pm hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes MD in GA
September 10th, 2009
I just got word from Ms. Sweeden, clerk for District Court Judge for the Middle District of GA. We were granted an emergency hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes, MD, flight surgeon, who is scheduled to be shipped to Iraq day after tomorrow on September the 12th. Capt Rhodes states that she is willing to go to Iraq, as long as she knows that the orders going down the chain of command are lawful orders. We asked this case to be certified as a class action case, as she represents a whole class of plaintiffs situated in similar position. The hearing will be tomorrow at 2pm in Columbus GA, Federal Building 1201 12th street. Judge Clay D. Land courtroom. Judge Land was gracious and a real Southern gentleman in that he waived the technical requirement of a signature of the local counsel as a contact.

I hope that members of the military and other patriots of this country will be in the courtroom to support Cpt. Rhodes MD.

I will be making my travel arrangements shortly.
_________________

Let's hope the momentum keeps up!

Happy 9-11 Folks. A total of eight years without a physical homeland attack by our enemies. Now all we have to do is deal with the domestic enemies within our own government.

On the Judge Carter side, we have this new article from The Post and Mail:

================

REFERRAL ORDER GIVES RISE TO SPECULATION THAT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IS TO COMMENCE

by John Charlton, The Post & Email
http://tinyurl.com/mg5xrh

(Sept. 11, 2009) — Yesterday U.S. Federal District Judge David Carter (Central District of California, Southern Division) ordered the Amended Motion for expedited Rogatory Discovery, filed by Attorney Taitz in the action Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al. referred to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. This order followed Carter’s denial of Taitz’ request to remove Judge Nakazato from his role overseeing admission of evidence to the case, which duty he has according to Federal Court rules of procedure. Judge Nakazato is now to review the first Kenyan Birth Certificate.

Attorney Taitz had submitted in July a Kenyan Birth Certificate (hereafter the Lavendar Document) to be authenticated by means of a mandamus to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, to move her to formally request the Kenyan Government to authenticate the document. This motion was denied by Judge Nakazato, whereupon Taitz filed a motion refusing to proceed before him, and a subsequent amendment to the initial Rogatory motion, on Aug. 20th.

Attorney’s for Barack Hussein Obama, led by Mr. George S. Cardona, acting U.S. Attorney, almost immediately replied to Carter’s order, with an ex-parte Application (accompanied by a proposed order), requesting immediate halt to any discovery which might be granted by the Magistrate Judge.

In this Ex-parte Application, Cardona requests,

"an Order staying all discovery in this matter pending the Court’s ruling upon Defendent’s motion to Dismiss, currently set for hearing on October 5, 2009, with the exception of discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter (this) said motion."

The substance of Cardona’s application is that it would violate procedures to allow any notable discovery, before Judge Carter considers the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed on Sept. 4, 2009 (editorialized by The Post & Email, on Wednesday).

At present it seems unclear, what the Defense in this case would fear from discovery resulting from what many Obama supporters have claimed is a forgery (based on a Bomford Birth Certificate, from South Australia, distributed by Bomford.net, an online genealogical site); since, if the Lavender Document is a forgery, discovery should confirm this. Contrariwise, if the discovery would result in showing that Obama was in fact born in Mombasa, as the document purports, it is not clear why the U.S. Attorney Generals would oppose the divulging of information which would confirm the crime of the usurpation of the highest office of the land, by Barack Obama.

RUMORS THAT CARTER HAS ORDERED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ARE AMISS

This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumors that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.

The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time.

(HJ - I corrected several misspellings in the article. I think John Charlton must be a Brit.)

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Happy 9-11 Folks. A total of eight years without a physical homeland attack by our enemies. Now all we have to do is deal with the domestic enemies within our own government.

On the Judge Carter side, we have this new article from The Post and Mail:

================

REFERRAL ORDER GIVES RISE TO SPECULATION THAT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IS TO COMMENCE

by John Charlton, The Post & Email
http://tinyurl.com/mg5xrh

(Sept. 11, 2009) — Yesterday U.S. Federal District Judge David Carter (Central District of California, Southern Division) ordered the Amended Motion for expedited Rogatory Discovery, filed by Attorney Taitz in the action Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al. referred to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. This order followed Carter’s denial of Taitz’ request to remove Judge Nakazato from his role overseeing admission of evidence to the case, which duty he has according to Federal Court rules of procedure. Judge Nakazato is now to review the first Kenyan Birth Certificate.

Attorney Taitz had submitted in July a Kenyan Birth Certificate (hereafter the Lavendar Document) to be authenticated by means of a mandamus to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, to move her to formally request the Kenyan Government to authenticate the document. This motion was denied by Judge Nakazato, whereupon Taitz filed a motion refusing to proceed before him, and a subsequent amendment to the initial Rogatory motion, on Aug. 20th.

Attorney’s for Barack Hussein Obama, led by Mr. George S. Cardona, acting U.S. Attorney, almost immediately replied to Carter’s order, with an ex-parte Application (accompanied by a proposed order), requesting immediate halt to any discovery which might be granted by the Magistrate Judge.

In this Ex-parte Application, Cardona requests,

"an Order staying all discovery in this matter pending the Court’s ruling upon Defendent’s motion to Dismiss, currently set for hearing on October 5, 2009, with the exception of discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter (this) said motion."

The substance of Cardona’s application is that it would violate procedures to allow any notable discovery, before Judge Carter considers the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed on Sept. 4, 2009 (editorialized by The Post & Email, on Wednesday).

At present it seems unclear, what the Defense in this case would fear from discovery resulting from what many Obama supporters have claimed is a forgery (based on a Bomford Birth Certificate, from South Australia, distributed by Bomford.net, an online genealogical site); since, if the Lavender Document is a forgery, discovery should confirm this. Contrariwise, if the discovery would result in showing that Obama was in fact born in Mombasa, as the document purports, it is not clear why the U.S. Attorney Generals would oppose the divulging of information which would confirm the crime of the usurpation of the highest office of the land, by Barack Obama.

RUMORS THAT CARTER HAS ORDERED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ARE AMISS

This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumors that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.

The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time.

(HJ - I corrected several misspellings in the article. I think John Charlton must be a Brit.)

From the mouth of Orly Taitz, she has been granted the go-ahead for expedited discovery. I listened to her interview on a Denver radio station and it was clear.

Folks, take a look at the article in the link below. Would like some opinions.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

This is what really worries me. Orly seems to be all over the place. I am afraid she might be only half listening. I appreciate the fact that she was able to get a case further than anyone has before, but I am afraid her lack of legal experience is going to result in this case not being heard at the end of the day. We have a judge WHO REALLY WANTS THIS CASE HEARD, however, her unorganized hap hazard style might be more than even this judge can permit.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Folks, take a look at the article in the link below. Would like some opinions.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

I am not surprised

And this pearl from Canada Free Press:

=================

The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

By JB Williams Thursday, September 10, 2009

Though we live in an era when all undesirable facts are often blindly labeled “conspiracy theoriesâ€

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Folks, take a look at the article in the link below. Would like some opinions.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

I also posted the article because the arguments seem quite credible: two certifications, one stating that Obama is legally eligibile, and the second one not mentioning eligibility.

I had actually seen both certifications earlier, but had just attributed the differences to DNC screw-ups. Not very good investigative skills on my part.

So, my opinion, to answer your question, is that this identified 'anomaly' must now be pursued, and I hope it becomes part of a lawsuit.

Good stuff.

The longer format was filed with the Secretary of State in Hawaii, and that state's SOS was the source of the longer document back in January.

The DNC might have prepared two different formats so they could meet the statutory standards that differed among states for what the Nomination certification must say.

Here is what could solidify the claim that something irregular happened in 2008, however. If people reading this post filed requests to their own states' Secretary of State for the Election 2004 certifications, those could be reviewed to see if they were all longer (or not). If they were longer, and they all had the Constitutional eligibility language in a year when John Kerry and John Edwards were the candidates for Pres and VP, then you have a strong basis for asking WHY was 2008 handled differently?

As far as I know, only Hawaii had the longer form filed for this election and that was because of HRS 11-113 (Title 11, Section 113 of Hawaii Revised Statutes).

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 1-0113.HTM

§11-113 Presidential ballots. (a) In presidential elections, the names of the candidates for president and vice president shall be used on the ballot in lieu of the names of the presidential electors, and the votes cast for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the presidential electors and alternates nominated by each political party.

(b) A "national party" as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

(2) In the case of candidates of parties or groups not qualified to place candidates on the primary or general election ballots, the person desiring to place the names on the general election ballot shall file with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election:

(A) A sworn application which shall include the information required under paragraph (1)(A) and (B), and (C) where applicable;

(B) A petition which shall be upon the form prescribed and provided by the chief election officer containing the signatures of currently registered voters which constitute not less than one per cent of the votes cast in the State at the last presidential election. The petition shall contain the names of the candidates, a statement that the persons signing intend to support those candidates, the address of each signatory, the date of the signer's signature and other information as determined by the chief election officer.

Prior to being issued the petition form, the person desiring to place the names on the general election ballot shall submit a notarized statement from each candidate of that person's intent to be a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States on the general election ballot in the State of Hawaii. Such statements may be withdrawn by a prospective candidate for Vice President and an alternative candidate for Vice President be substituted anytime prior to the notification of qualification or disqualification provided in subsection (d). Any such substitutions shall be accompanied by a notice of substitution satisfying subparagraph (A), a statement of intent as required by this paragraph, and a letter by the candidate for President endorsing the substitute candidate for Vice President. Upon receipt of a notice of substitution and all other required documents, the substitute shall replace the original candidate for Vice President on the general election ballot. The petitions issued in the names of the original candidates will remain valid for the purposes of this section.

(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.

(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L 1973, c 217, §1(ff); am L 1977, c 189, §1(; am L 1983, c 34, §14; am L 1993, c 304, §6]