Skip to comments.Obama eligibility attorney charges case rife with fraud
Posted on 01/08/2010 7:01:46 PM PST by Man50D
An attorney who has been involved in several high-profile cases alleging that Barack Obama isn't qualified to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen" as demanded by the Constitution now is asking a California judge in investigate possible fraud against the court.
Orly Taitz, who has, among other cases, one pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a member of the military wondering whether orders from Obama as commander-in-chief are valid, said the possibility of fraud is one of several concerns in the case.
"There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social Security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution," she wrote in her latest arguments that also request the case be moved to Washington, D.C.
She noted the respondent, Obama, "has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
She is right but ridiculed.
I pray that God will raise up good and capable men and women with the talent and resources to expose Obama and his minions. May He also confound, confuse,befuddle, and blind Obama’s men and lawyers so that they make many mistakes.
Its about 10 defending Obama to one other post.
Its obvious your postings are for the purpose of defending Zero.
Once in a while something else catches your eye.
It is clear you are a Zero Troll.
Tell you what, I’ll go on record about what is going to happen.
1) This latest filing will go nowhere.
2) Taitz’s future filings on this matter will go nowhere.
3) Taitz will be fined again before the year is out.
4) Taitz will be sentenced to jail time for failure to pay the fine(s).
5) Disbarment before the end of 2011.
Now, maybe I am right. Maybe I am wrong. But given her track record, this is certainly the way to bet.
Why stop there...she's
Here’s something for you to consider.
Advocating rational behavior, critical thinking and rule of law does not equate to support of any particular politician.
Nor does the failure to join the reflexive hate and denouncement of someone infer support of them.
And making fun of silly people doesn’t mean you are a grand admirer of the silly person’s target of hostility.
Think about that.
Something for you to think about....why do you and others who disagree with this subject come on these threads? Do you believe that you will change anyone’s mind? You won’t. I don’t understand posters propensity to haunt these threads when they disagree.
I want to add two final predictions to that list.
6) When the entirely predictable comes to pass (items 1-5) there will be ‘birthers’ loudly decrying each step as further evidence that the judiciary is thoroughly corrupted and under BHO’s thumb.
7) When the next Republican is elected (in 2012, Lord willing) and the denizens of DU try these same stunts, some of the very same people who call themselves ‘birthers’ and agitate most loudly here will immediately reverse their positions regarding the role of the judiciary, rules of evidence, court procedures, the results of elections and the Executive branch.
I know full well that I won’t change the minds of many, if any at all.
The hardcore birthers believe as they do because their views fulfill an emotional need. You cannot effectively through argument change the mind of a person who hold a view for emotional reasons. They have to work through it in their own time, if they ever do so.
Nevertheless, there are always individuals encountering this issue or aspects of it for the first time. And I do not wish to leave FreeRepublic to be an echo chamber of birther silliness.
That and silliness deserves to be mocked. At least a little bit.
Your soap selection? ... you chose poorly.
Um, the owner of this site also thinks that there is a problem with Obamas eligibility. I was on a thread with him when he zotted someone for challenging his opinion.
Then I disagree with him on that matter.
JR doesn’t ban people for simple disagreements.
If he zotted (that word really should be in the spellchecker) someone, I am sure he had a much better reason than them spouting a contrary opinion.
Dr. Taitz is keeping the heat on Obama, Pelosi, Leahy, McCaskill, etc. to prove he is eligible, and the possibility exists that the publicity will cause a whistleblower to have the courage to expose him. Several judges now are aware of Obama’s many social security numbers and that the one he uses now belongs to someone else. These numbers/aliases may be related to fraud, Rezko and the fact that a judge in Chicago revoked Michelle’s law license.
When Obama filed for his lawyer’s license he committed a felony by not putting down AKA Barry Soetoro. Orly is giving ulcers to the DOJ lawyers trying to stop investigations. They’re scared, too.
Are you aware that no alumni of Columbia remember him? Did you know Bill Ayers wrote parts of Obama’s books? Have you read Newsmax.com by Ken Timmerman “Obama had close ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age” Sep. 3, 2008? Read it. They got him into Harvard.
Ah-ha! I misread the packaging.
It was actually soup.
That explains a lot.
Now maybe the cats will stop licking me so much.
Not usually. He's a very reasonable man.
I am sure he had a much better reason than them spouting a contrary opinion.
Not really. This poster kept insisting that the subject was foolish and he'd had enough. They were a 97 or 98 signup so I was surprised.
I believe there was a recent thread he posted where he said he wouldn’t put up with RINO defenders on FR either. I was glad to see that.
He worked for Clinton in Arkansas and had a lot of first hand information on the dirty dealings the Clintons were involved in.
I used to listen to radio interviews of the guy all during the Clinton years and he was always a week or ten days from some sort of indictment, or some new charges that would bring down the administration. The longer it went on, the nuttier the guy became.
And I'm sure you remember Juanita Broderick. A major network let her tell her very credible story of how Bill Clinton raped her. And I remember several congressmen being horrified by what they read in the Starr report.
He was impeached, and even with a Republican majority in the house and senate, the senate didn't want anything to do with it. Not enough Republicans voted to have him removed, so he remained in office.
Now with a large Democratic majority in both houses, do you honestly believe that this senseless pursuit has a prayer of success?
I’m not so sure about #4...