Skip to comments.MOTION for Preliminary Injunction - Taitz v Obama (QW - DC district court)
Posted on 02/19/2010 3:45:38 PM PST by rxsid
"Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney's office from representing the defendant.Complete MOTION, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27132803/MOTION-for-Preliminary-Injunction
Plaintiff is seeking the Preliminary injunction-Injunctive relief to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the Plaintiff to the CA Bar.
Memorandum of point and authorities
The only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. "Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office."
Preliminary injunctive relief sought
Plantiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26,2010 his original birth certificate, which was allegedy obtained based on the defendant's birth in Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.
"..." directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school
"..."directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all passpor applications"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
"MOTION for Preliminary Injunction - Taitz v Obama (QW - DC district court)"
Boy, that JD via correspondence school is glaringly obvious.
INB4TT (in before the trolls)
Great, I’m in before the AFTER-birther trolls.
I’m confused ... a case # is shown .. is this
an actual case on Judge Lamberth’s docket ?
Here is the basis of the motion:
I got myself sanctioned and am about to be disbarred. Therefore, Obama must turn over his birth certificate and financial aid records (seriously, why?), because that will somehow prevent me from being disbarred.
Or wait till late night....They’re only paid for a few hours at a time.
What, is there a light or something that goes off in your basement everytime an Orly thread is posted?
You wouldn’t believe the technology that George Soros can pay for.
Maybe they're on a bong break, it's taking longer than usual.
I’m sure, what’s he paying you?
I admit I haven’t been following this as closely as I should. So......what’s the over/under on this thing really going anywhere? I’m asking sincerely; no sarcasm here.
$135,000/annual. Three weeks vacation. 410K. Health Insurance. HSA. Accidental dismemberment.
Doesn't make sense since they give you "accidental dismemberment"
Apparently the school saves a lot of money by leaving Rule 11 out of their Precedure textbooks.
I think a recusal motion is for jurists and a motion for withdrawl is for opposing counsel
I have little faith in the courts in this matter ... or for many others quite frankly
nice! Definitely should get some sort of award for that.
I am no fan of Obama, but I am a lawyer with 30+ years experience litigating in federal courts, and I can tell a cxase that's going nowhere when I see one. This case will go no further than any of the previous 62 eligibility suits.
Yeah. From the MOTION it say's "Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL"
LOL. Now that right there is funny!
This specific case? Not good at all, IMO.
1. Right now, I would just be satisfied with Obama coming out and announcing to all the world the name of his 1961 birth doctor so that the good doctor and his family can rightfully enjoy all the public glory and public rewards that a doctor who delivered a president of the united States should receive.
2. But surprisingly, dear old Obama has been conspicuously silent when it comes to publicly giving us his 1961 birth doctor's name.
3. Why is dear old Obama denying his 1961 birth doctor and his family all the public praise and rewards that a doctor who delivered the sitting President of the United States should be entitled to?
4. For instance, the doctor and his family could appear all over the television on such shows as Larry King, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck.
5. The good doctor could write a best-selling book about his experiences as a doctor at Kapiolani Hospital, the hospital where Obama says that he was born.
6. The good doctor could have a TV-movie made of his life, and he and his family could become rich and famous from books and movies.
7. The good doctor's family could have members who are important or not so important people today, people who could use the financial rewards and publicity that would come to them when Obama publicly announced the name of his 1961 Hawaii birth doctor.
8. But poor Obama, he is so silent about the name of his birth doctor.
9. So, again, why is the President of the United States behaving in such a terrible way and setting such a poor example to the people of the United States?
10. Could this be the reason: There is NO doctor name or hospital name on Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate?
11. Yes, that is the reason, in my opinion.
In your opinion, is this not getting anywhere because of the political aspects of this or the merits of the case?
What do attorney's need to do to get this heard and how should they go about it?
I'm asking because you have experience in this, I'd like to hear your opinion.
Good question! That's the $2,000,000 dollar question...or however much he's spent (time and money) fighting the release of that information.
I see your question, and raise another:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.
I believe in the wisdom that accompanies such experience. Why, in your experience, is this a non-starter? I’m anything BUT a lawyer, so I’m truly curious.
A quo warranto case can be filed by the U.S. Attorney for D.C., or by the Attorney General. Anyone else must ask the Court's permission to file a quo warranto. Orly filed a Petition for Leave to File a Quo Warranto, which was assigned a docket number. That Petition hasn't been ruled on yet, but Orly is filing motions as if this were an ongoing case, which it isn't yet. I predict the motions will be denied (as, eventually, will the Petition for Leave to File itself).
He is not a NBC even if he was born in Hawaii.
I would be interesting though to see him release the original and find that it is different from the one that they admitted to posting on the Internet, FRAUD.
For separation of powers reasons, courts are not going to get involved in a challenge to the qualifications of a sitting President. Congress can impeach him, but the courts will stay out of it.
What do attorney's need to do to get this heard and how should they go about it?
Every state has procedures on the books for challenging a candidate's right to be on the ballot. Those challenges have to be brought before the election and, in most states, can only be brought by an opposing candidate (not just any member of the public). If Obama runs for re-election in 2012, another candidate on the ballot can bring a challenge to Obama's candidacy. (I don't think they will prevail, but the case will be heard on the merits.)
Why not file one that will go somewhere? Talk is cheap. At least some people are trying and that is more than most on Fr.
Maybe the mods have a standing order to e-mail the troll collective? LOL.
They sure seem to be on some kind of alert system.
Maybe they have little lighbulbs up theie a$$es.The Holder/Emanual pass key pay check.
Then why is there a provision for Quo Warranto?
That assumes a crime of criminal fraud has not been committed.Interesting assumption. We have probable cause to believe otherwise.Simply free the long form.What is there to hide? A crime?
I am speaking as a lawyer here, so don't start calling me an Obot. People pay my firm lots of money for my opinion of what the courts will do; nobody cares about my opinion of what the courts should do.
Having said all that, I think that (assuming Obama was born in Hawaii) the NBC issue is a non-starter.
Obama made no secret of the fact that his father was a Kenyan. Despite that fact being widely known, no one challenged his right to run-- not one of his primary opponents, not McCain or Palin in the general election, not one member of the electoral college, not one member of Congress when the electoral votes were counted, not Vice President Cheney when he certified the electoral vote, not Chief Justice Roberts when he swore him in. During the whole primary and general election campaign, not one judge or law professor wrote a law review article or even an op-ed piece suggesting that Obama wasn't eligible-- not even conservative legal scholars like Ken Starr or Robert Bork.
Given those facts, I think there is zero chance that any court would find that Obama isn't a NBC (again, assuming he was born in Hawaii).
Oh, that's great! Good to know...
I can see where that could cause huge problems, is this why courts have been refusing to here cases based on standing, is that their way to wiggle out of it?
Every state has procedures on the books for challenging a candidate's right to be on the ballot. Those challenges have to be brought before the election and, in most states, can only be brought by an opposing candidate
I can definitely see that becoming an issue if nobamma decides to seek re election, I'm surely losing hope that this will be resolved in the courts.
But if it turns out that Obama was indeed a fraudulent POTUS, wouldn't that nullify every law he signed while in office?
Seems to me that would cause more of a crisis then just booting his butt out now.
The quo warranto statute has never been used against a President. The only times it has been used, as far as I know, is against minor officials.
LOL....troll and go.
Probably not, under something called the "de facto officer doctrine."
IMO, the reason this wasn't touched in 2008 or 2009 comes down to the touchy subject of race. It's not about the subject matter at hand. It's about the color of his skin and this country's history re: that.
NOBODY was going to "deny" the first "black" president (even though he's more white and arabic than black). Especially when he enjoyed high "approval" ratings. No way, no how.
Remember though, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be brought down by the cover-up.
So, who knows now that his poll numbers are in the toilet and the Tea Partier's are starting to affect Congressional races.
I don't believe any court will hear any eleigibility case on the merits until and unless Obama runs for re-election. At that time, I'm sure some candidate on the ballot (probably not the Republican) will bring a proper election-law challenge to Obama's eligibility.
When that happens, my prediction is that Obama will present an official Hawaiian short-form COLB-- like the one he posted on the internet, but with an official raised seal from Hawaii. At that point, he will claim that he has no obligation to produce a long form, because the short form is valid under Hawaiian law and the Constitution therefore requires every other state to give it "Full Faith and Credit." That will be an interesting court fight.
I wouldn't do that, I know who the obots are on these threads. We ran into each other on the NBC thread the other day: Here if any one missed it, great thread
Even if it turns out that he wasn't born in the States, wouldn't it still come down to the NBC issue.
I just know they would argue it doesn't matter because his mom was a citizen, therefore he meets the requirements.
There is a lot of rulings and historical evidence to back up the definition of NBC, being born of two citizen parents.
I really hate to see our Country and Constitution being torn to shreds like this by this commie.
Even SR 511 defined McCain as being eligible because of two citizen parents, this whole thing really frustrates me.
But not by anyone entitled to bring a challenge under state election laws.
They will have to absolutely destroy Taitz to shut her up, so its important that she be decried and dehumanized for when that later happens.
You want to see a lawyer? No need to make an appointment. Just post a Taitz article and you will have a few lawyers you can ask for advice and referral. Free of Charge !They are already getting paid by somebody.So they can't charge you for any advice they give.
Its the Taitz thread Legal Referral Service, brought to you by the Mods of FR? Thanks guys!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.