Posted on 11/12/2009 12:36:30 PM PST by fours
A man claiming to have been Barack Obama’s homosexual lover and another claiming to have Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate say Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz asked them to lie in federal court.
Taitz planned to use the two as witnesses in her effort to prove Obama was born in Kenya and is not a legitimate president. However, the case was dismissed on Oct. 29 by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter without going to trial.
In his dismissal, Carter wrote, “the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
... in a Nov. 9 motion that criticized Carter’s dismissal of the case, Taitz identifies Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith as the witnesses she believes filed affidavits saying that she asked them to lie. She denies the accusations and told me she thinks Sinclair and Smith filed the affidavits in response to pressure put on them. Sinclair provided me a copy of the affidavit he said he provided to the court, and said that he mailed a copy to Taitz as well.
Smith claims to have bribed a Kenyan official in February and obtained this document, which he says is Obama’s 1961 Kenyan birth certificate. Among those calling the document a fake is World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi ...
Among allegations made in the affidavit from Smith is that Taitz asked him to say that he was the one who obtained a document that was alleged to be a 1964 Republic of Kenya Certified Copy of Registration of Birth of Barack Hussein Obama II. That document had been called a forgery by experts and in his affidavit, Smith said his research also concluded that the document was fake.
Smith also said that after he nearly stepped in front of a car driving down the street, Taitz “wanted me to give testimony in the Honorable Judge David O. Carter’s courtroom that there had been an ‘attempt on my life’…”
Taitz told the court that Smith’s life was in danger because the Obama administration did not want the information to get out.
According to Sinclair’s affidavit, Taitz wanted Sinclair to testify in order to bolster the case that lives were in danger and the case should be expedited.
... “Orly Taitz stated, ‘Larry, I want you to testify that three members of Obama’s church were murdered.’ I interrupted Orly Taitz at this time and informed her, ‘Dr. Taitz, I told you when you contacted me in December 2008 you were spreading false claims, there was not three members of Obama’s church murdered.’” Sinclair says in the affidavit.
Sinclair also says that Taitz asked him to identify for the court a birthmark on Obama, which Sinclair said he had not in fact seen.
Taitz said she “absolutely did not” ask Smith to say the 1964 certificate came from him, and “absolutely did not” ask him to say there had been an attempt on his life. She said she talked to Sinclair about other deaths in the church but did not ask him to lie, and denied his other allegations as well.
“There was some kind of pressure on Lawrence Sinclair and Lucas Daniel Smith to stop working with me,” Taitz said.
Pressure from whom?
“I don’t know who,” she said.
Sinclair says the only pressure he felt was from Taitz and her backers.
“I had gone out of my way to not be associated with her in any way, but she continued to try and pull me and my story into her cases,” Sinclair wrote me in an email. “I have not been pressured except by the constant attacks from her and her supporters because I would not make statements that I knew to be false.”
In his affidavit, Smith repeatedly expresses frustration with Taitz’ inability to address the lawsuit effectively.
“… it began to become clearer and clearer to me that Orly Taitz had no understanding of the law,” he said. “I came to an exhaustive conclusion that Orly Taitz may be the ‘Birthers’ worst nightmare. Outside of paying attention to her own voice at length, Orly Taitz has the attention span of a small child….”
“I knew that there was nothing further that I could do to convince Orly Taitz that we should fight this case with truths and documentation rather than her campaign of fighting Obama lies with Orly lies.”
Click here to read Smith’s affidavit. Beware that there is explicit discussion of Taitz alleged sexual behavior.
For the Indiana court to accept the dicta over the actual holding was very bold of them. Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
Apparently so. He’s either a believable witness and Zero is, in fact, homo or bisexual, or he’s lying about everything.
Lefties can’t have it ‘both ways’. Yet still they try.
We don’t need nuts to uphold the constitution. It does fine all bu itself.
So what does a signature have to do with anything?
Isn’t his behavior regarding Fort Hood and, now, bringing a terrorist to NYC for a **civilian** trial proof enough? I think so.
The Founding Fathers were wise to put in that requirement that our president and Commander in Chief be a natural born citizen. We, today, would be wise to abide by it.
Really, you must live in a dream world, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
Still wondering what your point about the signature was, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
Why would I? The real question is, are you? Because if Taitz is the best you've got, then you've got nothing.
The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to rule on any of the 7 lawsuits that have reached them concerning Obama’s eligibility. The cases are Berg v Obama, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama et al., Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
Since it only takes four of the nine justices (”the rule of four”) to “grant cert” and agree to hear a lawsuit before the full court, its obvious that even the traditionalists/strick consructionists/conservatives on the court: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and/or Thomas have not been persuaded to take on this issue.
They didn't reject the holding-- nothing they did conflicts with the holding of any SCOTUS decision. They did follow the Supreme Court's dictum, which is generally what lower courts do when there is no binding precedent on point. Not terribly bold of them.
Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
I'm sure it will be challenged in the future, but I strongly doubt it will be rejected by any court.
They didn't reject the holding-- nothing they did conflicts with the holding of any SCOTUS decision. They did follow the Supreme Court's dictum, which is generally what lower courts do when there is no binding precedent on point. Not terribly bold of them.
Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
I'm sure it will be challenged in the future, but I strongly doubt it will be rejected by any court.
“Where can I find a record of really how much Obama has spent? Someone keeps using this as an argument..implying that we are lying...where do I find the proof?”
I asked that question for months. The amount spent is goes up and down and there is never a source. I did read somewhere that Obama campaign funds were used prior to the election and the DOJ defends a sitting president at taxpayer expense. So, perhaps Obama has not spent a cent defending himself.
And "determining" that a child born to an alien parent is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen" came from what SCOTUS holding?
Apparently the real issue, the CONSTITUTION, is NOT important to you???
So like the usurper's ilks and like-minded "workers" here on F.R. it is more important to kill the messenger that the real message, and then spending a fortune of your tax dollars to cover up this political take-over or coup makes a lots of sense? BHO, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
As I've said several times, there is no SCOTUS holding either way, but there is a strong, well-considered dictum, supported by much historical eveidence, that a child born on U.S. soil to two alien parents is a natural born citizen, and the Indiana court followed that-- which is what any court would do.
Seriously, what do you have?? Not much. You don’t have the supposed smoking gun birth certificate. You have a rather dubious Constitutional interpretation of “Natural Born”. And you have a pathetically inept lawyer.
I wish you had the smoking gun to save the country from this nightmare, but I tend to deal in truth and provable facts, of which, on this issue, you are in short supply.
Deceit is the only way Barry's kneepad sycophancy can cover for their obamessiah. If you contineu to exchange posts with obamanoids, they will repeat the same lies they've used, deceive readers int he same ways, and ridicule Barry's opposition. Some of these scum have even admitted that this kneepadding they engage in is a primary source of amusement for them. Think of how twisted that is!
That is my understanding as well. His campaign paid 1.7 million to Perkins & Cole for a variety of legal services during the campaign, among those services was legal advice and defense for eligibility lawsuits, IIRC. Now as President, the taxpayers pick up the check via the DOJ.
The 1.7 million figure is solid, I understand. But it is for a variety of legal services and not all directed towards “hiding the birth certificate” as some try to characterize it. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge’ over-billing as it was campaign cash and not a dime out of BHO’s pocket.
Tatze isn’t baiting anyone...I’ve gotten similar treatment.
While there are some possible eligibility issues, re: his Indonesian residence and whether he held/holds “dual citizenship” - the birth certificate thing in and of itself is a ridiculous wild goose chase.
Where we really need to focus, IMHO, is on his involvement with the election side of ACORN.
I meant I’ve gotten similar treatment when I’ve suggested that the “birthers” make the conservative movement look bad.
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.