Skip to comments.Eligibility attorney plans return to Supreme Court
Posted on 05/09/2009 4:13:17 AM PDT by Man50D
California attorney Orly Taitz, who has taken cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president to a number of courts across the nation including the U.S. Supreme Court, says she'll be returning to the high court, this time seeking a petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus.
"As Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor did not institute Quo Warranto and did not respond, I will go back to SCOTUS," Taitz announced today on her website.
"As you know, I am being crucified for every little error, so I have sent the draft to a couple of attorneys, paralegals, technical consultants and language consultants, to give me their input and I will file in a few days," she said.
"Bottom line, I will be filing until I get an answer," she wrote.
Taitz was the lead attorney earlier representing military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines when they cited Quo Warranto, a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers, to demand documentation that may prove or disprove Obama's eligibility.
The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
She certainly is a bulldog. I wish I had the money to help her.
She certainly is a bulldog. I wish I had the money to help her.
I feel similarly on both counts.
Ex parte SCOTUS, led by John Roberts, unethically meets with a single litigant
in the most imporant case before them in their entire lives.
Code of Professional Ethics? John Jay? Integrity? Ethics? the US Constitution?
There certaqinly seems to be enoguh unanswered quewtions to make this a legitimate issue.
God Bless her and WHERE IS THE CONSERVATIVES HELPING HER????
Most are trying to act like democrats so the media might one day like them.....
“I wish I had the money to help her.”
You would be surprised what 10-20 bucks can do if thousands of people do the same thing. I am sure she appreciates every dime.
Look, guys. This case/noncase, while it is probably true Obama is not natural born citizen, has been presented wrongly from the gitgo. It can never go forward as a Civil Suit. It is unique in that the Fifth Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. HE cannot be forced to produce a document that proves he committed fraud and/or any other crime. This is a criminal act, and as such should have been investigated by DOJ or any State AG. A warrant could then have been issued to the STATE he claims to have been born in, forcing the state of Hawaii to comply.
The DOJ has NO INTEREST in removing Obama. It is never going to happen. However, a state AG MIGHT be able to press this, although that doesn’t seem probable either.
In the meantime, a lot of people are collecting a lot of donations knowing full well there can be no CIVIL resolution to this.
If it were just the birth certificate I could write it off as a fluke.
July 4 Tea Party idea : Little airplanes towing banners saying “Obama, where is your friggin’ birthcertificate”.
We have got to take some drastic steps somehow.
And what makes you think that the Supreme Court won't tell her to go away? Again?
This was interesting:
“According to a report at All The News That Fits, lawyers for Obama submitted in a court challenge late in 2008 that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation” in one of the many eligibility challenges that have been filed.”
So Obama’s lawyers think he can be protected from ‘serious embarrassment’? Is ‘embarrassment’ covered in the ‘self incrimination’ law? LOL
Being caught committing fraud is embarrassing. I have to agree with his lawyers.
If zero is legitimate, then it is the property of the people of the United States ... and so too are it's personal affects.
Thus, for the betterment of society (re-unification of a fractured nation), just friggin' storm the Honolulu State House and take it.
and your sign up date
makes for a suspicious post
You would be correct, if this was a criminal action .......... but it's a civil action. Anyhow, If he was going to assert that type of defense, he should have claimed his 5th amendment rights in his first response to the action.
Soooooo, produce the documents Zero!
I still am unclear why any citizen subject to whatever is signed into law by the President doesn't have legal standing.
I am especially unclear why members of the military do not have an even more compelling interest as their rights are more limited than non-military and they are expected to follow orders from the Commander in Chief.
By refusing to produce common paperwork that citizens are required to show for much less serious situations, obama has created doubt about the legitimacy of anything he says or does as President.
If he cannot be forced to produce documentation that might incriminate him, then is it mutiny for citizens and members of the military to refuse to accept and follow his "laws" and his orders until he does?
“Head”, meet “Cement Wall”.
I gave 10 bucks so that when he is found out and prosecuted I can proudly say I helped take back our country. It’s in our hands to help, even if just a little. Hold a garage sale, empty the coin jar etc. It’s for a very good cause for a very important matter.
What happened to Chief Justice Roberts’ claim that he would “look at” Taotz’s paperwork?
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. asks Chief Justice John Roberts a “birther” question
WOW. That is so true. Thank you for that.
Go Orly go!! I like it!!
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone challenge the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An Act doesnt cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a qualification of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to qualify. To infer that the lack of a specified qualification process means that stated eligibility qualifications for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done. There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to qualify, a president elect must present evidence that he meets its requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has failed to qualify and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet qualified as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see Congress in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper qualifying documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law. The Constitution IS the law. We just need ONE of these people to stand up and do the right thing.
BTTT! Very good thread.
I’ve been away from FR for a couple of weeks and just trying to catch up. Someone emailed this to me and I haven’t seen it here, have no idea whether it’s true or not. Have you seen it?
Obama Faces More Questions on Citizenship
by AP- WASHINGTON D.C.
Obama Faces More Questions on Citizenship
April 02, 2009
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obamas qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has released copies of President Obamas college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obamas detractors have been seeking.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obamas legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administrations efforts to move the country in a new direction.
Britains Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obamas first official visit to the U.K.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obamas legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obamas dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrios case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obamas citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obamas campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter
Submitted on 2009-04-27 10:32:27
Your argument is most cogent, namely, that the onus is on the President elect to show documentation that he/she is, in fact, qualified to SERVE as POTUS.
“To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to ‘qualify’, a president elect must present evidence that he meets its requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented?”
Here is the problem:
I believe, in rebuttal, the opposition will make the ‘argument’ that the Constitution does not list a SPECIFIC ‘controlling authority’ that the candidate would PROVE his eligibility to.
But YOU counter that argument in your citation from the U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”
You are 100% correct(IMHO).
Our feckless Senators and Representatives have let us — ‘the people’ — down.
They have collectively abandoned their oaths of office.
Of course, the ‘horse is out of the barn’, and no one will want to be the one to admit that they were the ones who left the barn door wide open.
In summation you have indicated a logical remedy, as follows:
“Anyone serving in Congress (see ‘Congress’ in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has ‘standing’ and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper ‘qualifying’ documentation from Mr. Obama.”
Concerned citizens MUST keep the pressure on by not allowing our ‘leaders’ to ‘pass the buck’ on this critical constitutional issue.
Thank you for your excellent analysis.
Who exactly is it that I am defending? What about my “signup date” is suspicious? Suspicious how? I wasn’t trying to start an argument here. I am trying to make the point that this is indeed actionable, but it has to be done correctly. I don’t think anyone wants Obama gone as much, or faster, than I do.
A civil action will not work because no one is able to produce any hard evidence against Obama and he cannot be forced to produce evidence against himself. Hearsay is not evidence and so nothing ANYONE has said, including his own grandma, is admissible if there is no hard proof that what they say is true.
Secretaries of State were derelict pre-election. Attorneys General MUST bring action post election.
This has been a Constitutional catch 22 since it started. A paradox, if you will. Two contradictory mandates within the Constitution itself which some very smart critter figured out before Obama began his ascent to the throne.
Please do not make accustions you have no basis for.
He does not have to claim the Fifth Amendment to a CIVIL action. That is where this whole thing comes off the rails. All he really needs to do is shut up. It MUST be a CRIMINAL investigation wherein a LEGAL WARRANT can be issued for documents relevant to this case. THE STATE OF HAWAII would then be forced to either produce a VALID birth certificate, or affirm that there is no such document.
There IS ample cause to suspect a fraud has been perpetrated precisely BECAUSE he has steadfastly refused to produce valid documents, AND no Secretary of State required the proper proof of citizenship before Obama was allowed to be on any state’s ballot.
A sitting judge must issue a proper warrant based on all the facts in the case.
“I’m going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We don’t need Orly, we need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one.”
Would be great if any one of them had the steel to do it. But every d@mn one of them has disobeyed their oath of office so many times, this is just one more. They do keep getting re-elected though. They do not inhabit the real world. So what do we do? We have GOT to go local. AG in any state where the 0 was on the ballot.
“What is he Hiding and Why?”
And therein lies the dilemma. As long as these things remain hidden, there is nothing anyone can do. This has been a masterful criminal plan...almost perfect. It might take time, but SOMEONE will have to claim some kind of credit for this.
Obama is so obnoxious and full of himself, that he WILL try to pull a stunt on his own. THEN, the lightning will strike.
So we should nation wide start writing our State Attorney Generals? Focus on the Hawaiian AG? I’m a retired psychiatrist, and yes, I think his NPD will eventually cause him to crash and burn, but the key is he not take the US along with him. .
Well, since I already know I have an FBI file, I have sent your information to Sens McConnell, Kyl, Chambliss and Rep Boehner and Deal. And to Michael Steele, Chair of the GOP.
They have NO excuse. Someone has GOT to take the flying leap off the building to see if the Constitution has wings.
I’ll start watching my back tomorrow.
Thanks - if I had doing my usual FR reading the last couple/three weeks, I would have found out something about it.
This may be off base, but has anyone seen or heard of his High School Yearbook. With all the talk about his BC and research I’ve done, I’ve never run into it. I’ve seen his senior picture on the web, but has anyone who graduated with him have it in hand with “high school stories” about hanging out with Barry. I’ve read where his classmates at Columbia said, “Don’t know him. . never heard of him” type of comments. During the primaries, the election, how often have people volunteered, “Yeah, back when, me and Barry were tight, We used to hang out, do this and that.” I haven’t seen or heard of that at all. Usuually people jump out and say, “Yeah, I knew him or her” when they become a celeb. Hmmm, another topic to research. . .
That's has been the question for some time. We have endured a whipping even heron FR that few expected.
Hawaii just proclaimed an Islam day for itself, so I don’t think putting pressure on anyone from there would do much good. But State Attorneys General are elected for the most part so maybe...just maybe, ONE of them would love to be a hero and save the world. It would be a ticket into political heaven for someone looking to get there.
A national letter writing campaign to put pressure on them to do the right thing has GOT to influence someone.
Montana, Oklahoma look great for starters.
I wrote on my blog that Obama is like the street thug gangsta rappers. They make a whole lot of money and still act like street thugs in big houses with big parties, and nothing changes but the cashflow.
0 is still a community organizer, a bully, but not smart enough to have concocted this scam. I have never seen a lid more tightly held on than what we are seeing with 0. So the puppetmaster must be brilliant and ruthless. I think I know who, but that is for another day. At any rate, someone pulls his strings and it ain’t Soros. Soros is the mad money man.
Of course she will. She’s hoping that if she keeps shooting her mouth off in all directions, that she might just hit something.
Sorry...did anyone hear ZERO take the Fifth?
Actually, there is unquestionable evidence that he HAS commited document fraud by producing a fraudulent document.
Yet, that's the one thing Orly has NOT pursued.
“Sorry...did anyone hear ZERO take the Fifth?”
He doesn’t have to take the Fifth for a civil suit. There have been no criminal charges for him to plead to...even though he is surely a criminal.
You’re right. However, he’s taken the First, Second, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Twentieth away. It’s only a matter of time before the rest are gone.
Then we’d best get a move on. No pun intended.
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.