Posted on 01/03/2013 8:04:31 AM PST by TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed
This order was issued at 5:17pm [1/2/2013] by Judge England, confirming that each side gets 20 minutes at tomorrow’s [1/3/2013] hearing per local rules
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=373421
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Grinols-complaint.pdf
This may be out last best hope to stop the monster named Obama. It is a TRO hearing. If judge England gives it a fair treatment (that's a BIG IF), and rules for Taitz, et. al., then this will become worldwide news.
The case has merit and standing because it is being brought by a certified Republican elector who is being disenfranchized because of Obama's fraud.
Whatever you may think of Dr. Orly Taitz, do not spit on her with your comments. She is actually DOING SOMETHING to stop Obama and protect your freedoms.
I suggest that we pray for her success.
The Arizona electors are also considering a protest to his election. Don’t hold your breath...but any port in a storm.
Can she subpoena the “birth certificate” as evidence of fraud?
“Cannot link to Taitz website per FR rules. “
Is this something new?
Because I can’t find the site anywhere on the updated list.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
WHAT birth certificate?
Too many complaints about the massive and nasty malware people have gotten when going to her site, I think. At one time, it was the worst I’d seen, so I thought maybe the place had been hacked. But it wasn’t, it’s just another facet to Taits. So I just stay away from all things Orly Tait just to be safe.
Interesting.
I’ve never gotten any warnings about malware or ‘attack site’ anytime that I’ve gone to that site.
Might just be ‘false positives’ from whatever antimalware or antivirus program that is being used.
But, like I said, I didn’t see it listed under the ‘excerpted’ or ‘link only’ copyright list.
Thanks for the info though.
AFAIK, the Electors could vote for Daffy Duck if they chose to - that would not violate Federal law.
They may face state charges, but who they vote for is a done deal, state charges or not.
I went to her site a couple times and never got ANYTHING like you describe, I also run Linux.
Sometimes I wonder whose side Taitz is on..
I’m definitely praying for her success.
AZ SOS Ken Bennett sent in a request form asking HI to verify Obama’s birth facts, as well as some other things. The verification he received did not verify ANY birth facts that were submitted in the request application: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama, even though HRS 338-14.3 requires the registrar to verify any submitted facts if it CAN be verified (certified as being the way the event actually happened).
Onaka would not verify that the White House long-form image was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” but did verify that the information contained in the White House image “matches” the record on file. In a later verification to KS SOS Kris Kobach Onaka would not verify that the information in the White House image is “identical to” the information in the record on file.
Because the claims on the White House image are all on the original record, all of the above-listed items lawfully have to be verified in the verification to Ken Bennett IF THE RECORD THEY HAVE IS LEGALLY VALID. Because he did not include those items, we know that the record is not legally valid.
IOW, there is a certified document from Hawaii indirectly confirming that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is legally non-valid and that he has no legally-established birth facts.
There is no way he has ever been able to qualify to be President. That’s according to a certified document from the official in Hawaii responsible to tell the truth about the record.
An official order from Congress to Hawaii, demanding that 0bama’s ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS be submitted or made available for Congress to review would put this baby to bed once and for all, so to speak.
My first attempt to link to the website was stopped with a complaint about malware.
This isn’t “doing something”, this is an 11th-hour tinfoil gasp of hot air.
The time to “do something” was last year, when we failed to nominate an actual conservative to be Obama’s opponent.
Right now this is just a TRO. If it goes to trial, then yes, she can supoena the birth certificate.
BTW, she is purposely going for a jury trial so that the Obama administration cannot put the screws to a single judge to get him to vote in favor of Obama.
http://www.abdulhassanforpresident.com/ballot_access/Florida_Ballot_Access_Ruling_Hassan_for_President.pdf
The Florida Supreme Court ruled, "The law does not give the secretary of state any power or authority to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running." Davis ex rel, Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928).
If an ineligible candidate for the Office of the President of the U.S. (or the party in the case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 103, Florida Statutes, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the ineligible candidate. The Secretary's ministerial granting of ballot access "would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate's name from the ballot if the candidate does not satisfy the qualifications for the office of the President of the United States."
I agree that we should have fielded a conservative.
However, since we have a system that elects the president through an Electoral College, it seems to be the only avenue for a challenger to have “standing.” Everything other suit has been dismissed for lack of “standing.”
This is the proper avenue for exposing the fraud and stopping the monster.
“This is the proper avenue for exposing the fraud and stopping the monster.”
It’s still going to tick off a lot of “conservative” posters here.
1) No judge in the US is willing to overturn a nation-wide election or reconfirming election. That single person (or group) will be saddled with having created a Constitutional crisis (and probable urban unrest/looting, reference Rodney King).
2) The SCOTUS has already shown us that nationwide elections alter the immediate understanding of the Constitution; meaning elections trump the US Constitution.
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.