Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.

Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)

Update on the Keyes v. Obama case and filing of the (alleged) Kenyan B.C. (copy of):

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARTHUR NAKAZATO’S ACTION OF AUGUST 6, 2009 and MOTION FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CDCA L.R. 72-2.1:

NO TRANSFER NOR CONSENT NOR ORDER OF REFERENCE AUTHORIZED THIS MAGISTRATE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER OR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE—MOTION TO RECUSE 28 U.S.C. §455(a)

Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order of August 6, 2009, is a nullity without lawful force or effect because it was entered without any prior transfer nor order of reference, nor by the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are concerned, and first and foremost generally object to Judge Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 order (shown as Document 35) in “Case: 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN As of: 08/17/2009 06:55 PM PDT” because Judge Nakazato’s hyper-formalistic order appears to be inconsistent with Judge David O. Carter’s oral assurances in court on July 13, 2009, that this case would be allowed to proceed on the merits without undue regard to technicalities.
The motion submitted was extremely important and the technicalities enumerated seem unworthy. The first violations of the local rules which Judge Nakazato listed was the form of the “Notice of Motion” required by Central District of California L.R. 6-1 and L.R. 7-4: Plaintiffs did not check their calendars to select which Monday was their Motion day. While omission was a fair criticism on the Magistrate Judge’s part, L.R. 7-4 states that “the court MAY decline to consider a motion unless it meets to requirements of L.R. 7-4-7-8.” In the context of this case, where none of the Defendants had actually appeared or answered as of yet, and in which Judge Carter had previously set hearings sua sponte without reference to the “Notice of Motion” rule or schedule, Judge Nakazato’s UNAUTHORIZED order striking the Plaintiffs’ Motion seems unduly severe and prejudicial.
In regard to L.R. Rule 11-3.3 regarding form and format: pagination, Plaintiffs submit that their failure to paginate was a printing error, and that in fact they were unaware that their motion had no numbers until this was pointed out by the Court, because on their computer screen, the Motion was fully compliant with: “L.R. 11-3.3 Pagination. All documents shall be numbered consecutively at the bottom of each page.” More perplexing, however, is Judge Nakazato’s reference to Rule 11-3.6: “L.R. 11-3.6 Spacing . The typing or printing on the document shall be double spaced, including citations and quotations.”
Even after carefully examining the three subparts of L.R. 11-3.6 in some detail, Plaintiffs submit that their August 1, 2009, Motion was entirely in compliance with Local Rules 11-3.6, 11-3.6.1, 11-3.6.2, and 11.6.3. In any event, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory is currently being prepared. 28 U.S.C. §455(a)

MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARTHUR NAKAZATO

As noted above, Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order of August 6, 2009, seems entirely incompatible with Judge David O. Carter’s oral pronouncements made both literally and figuratively ex-cathedra in open court on Monday, July 13, 2009, that he intended to take this case concerning the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States seriously and see that the merits of this case would not be obscured by trivial technicalities. As the United States Supreme Court has held (per Justice Scalia) that …favorable or unfavorable predisposition can also deserve to be characterized as “bias” or “prejudice” because, even though it springs from the facts adduced or the events occurring at trial, it is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. (That explains what some courts have called the “pervasive bias” exception to the “extrajudicial source” doctrine. See, e.g., Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 188, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976).)

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 551, 114 S.Ct.at 1155, 127 L.Ed.2d at 488 (1994). Plaintiffs submit that Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order, entered without any prior order of reference, without the consent of the parties, and without an order of transfer from the District Judge, shows in its content and tenor a disloyalty to Judge Carter’s promise and in fact a disregard (with regard to the pagination 11-3.6 issues) a complete disregard of the actual compliant nature of the motion attacked. If the Court believes that these Plaintiffs’ counsel has in any way violated Local Rule 11-3.6, the Plaintiffs’ pray that the Court will instruct counsel on the nature of the violations.
The reality is that a firestorm broke loose on the internet and electronic media generally on August 2-5 concerning the document attached to Plaintiff’s August 1, 2009 Document 34 as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs’ counsel was subjected to verbal abuse including death-threats and that this firestorm was unjustifiably fed and fanned by Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order. The reality of this case is that respect for the importance of the issues involved, such as the respect shown by Judge David O. Carter on July 13, 2009, is the only hope for a fair and just resolution in the best interests of the people of the United States.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the United States District Court will sustain their objections to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order entered Thursday August 6, 2009, which objections are submitted within ten business days as allowed by Rule 6(a)(2), and that the Court will set together the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Judge Nakazato’s order together with the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge Arthur Nakazato for hearing prior to the 24 days after service required by local Rule 6-1 and 7-4 which yields an “ordinary” Motion day of September 14, 2009. Respectfully submitted,

Monday, August 18, 2009

By:________________________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433)

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

26302 La Paz, Suite 211

Mission Viejo, California 92691

Telephone (949) 683-5411

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

"http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3906"

Excerpts from:

BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD. Department of Health and Human Services OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. JUNE GIBBS BROWN Inspector General, SEPTEMBER 2000, 0EI-07-99-00570.

FINDINGS

Fundamental, Irreconcilable Conflicts Surround Birth Certificate Purposes and Uses

Birth Certificates Continue to be Used as “Breeder Documents” and are Easy to Obtain
Virtually all Federal and State agencies agree that fraudulent birth certificates are used as “breeder documents” to obtain the genuine documents needed to create new identities, and that fraudulent birth certificates are easy to obtain. Factors which contribute to their use as “breeder documents” include the following:
currently, 6,422 different entities issue birth certificates. This large number of State, county, city, township, and other entities that issue birth certificates increases opportunities for fraud, theft, bribery, and other methods of illegally obtaining birth certificates;
thirteen States allow “open” access to birth records, which allows virtually anyone to purchase copies of any birth certificates on file; and
birth certificates can be purchased without identification from some vital records offices and issuing entities.

Birth Certificate Fraud is Hard to Detect
Many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected. The reasons why these fraudulent birth certificates are hard to detect include the following:
over 14,000 different versions of birth certificates are in circulation;
nearly 4 million United States births were registered in 1999;
security features contained in the paper used to issue birth certificates, as well as formats and signatures, vary among State vital records offices and the many local entities issuing them;
technological advances in the Internet, scanners, color printers, and copiers make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones;
between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters — the most difficult fraud to detect; and
Federal and State agency staff report receiving only limited training focused on the detection of fraudulent birth certificates.

Birth Certificate Fraud

State Practices Create Opportunities for Fraud
It was the consensus of those we interviewed that a number of State practices create opportunities for fraud. Those practices include the following:
delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly;
delays in matching death and birth records can make the identities of many deceased persons easy to assume between the time the person dies and the time the death and birth records are matched;
questionable physical security situations that create opportunities for fraud; and
limited oversight of local issuing entities by State vital records offices.

Birth Certificate Fraud is Seldom Prosecuted
Virtually all of the Federal and State agency staff we talked with indicate birth certificate fraud is seldom prosecuted unless it can be linked to large dollar losses or other punishable crimes. Most staff also indicate that many prosecutors are reluctant, or refuse to take birth certificate fraud cases in which the only charge is attempting to obtain another individual’s birth certificate, or counterfeiting or altering a birth certificate. At the same time, misconceptions exist surrounding the security and integrity of birth certificates.

CONCLUSIONS

Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity
Many agencies and organizations request that individuals provide their birth certificates to receive a benefit or service, or to support the issuance of other documents often used for identity purposes (e.g., driver’s license). However, agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship, or identity. For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.
Further, it would be Impractical to Redesign Birth Certificates to Make them Reliable Identification Documents in and of Themselves

OMG; I thought you were kidding til I read the other posts & then looked at the picture again. I have encountered more scrubbed sites, 404’s, and non-existent urls on wayback machine in the last 2 days than I have in the last 15 yrs combined-—not to mention conflicting information. I was interested in the periods he most tried to hide or disguise of the early days -— Ann, post-baby in Washington; his 80’s trip to Kenya; & Columbia U.

Is his true story ever going to come out?!! I came across a mention that Fox News had interviewed 400 former Columbia U. classmates and not one remembered him.

Are you suggesting he may never have gone to Columbia U? What about Phil Boerner’s credibility?

Phil Boerner ’84: “We both transferred from Oxy to Columbia in fall 1981. Barack had found an apartment on West 109th Street, between Amsterdam and Columbus, and suggested that I room with him.....After that first semester, we had to move. Barack tried to find an apartment for both of us, but was only able to find a studio for himself. I was able to house-sit in Brooklyn Heights....

Through different living arrangements in Astoria, Queens; Bay Ridge, Brooklyn; and all over Manhattan, we stayed in touch and remained friends for the rest of our college years. He got to know my girlfriend from Arkansas, who is now my wife. Since I last saw him in 1985, we have exchanged a few letters and photos. He left for Chicago, and I eventually settled in Sacramento.”

http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

“In about 1982, [(Hal) Sohale] Siddiqi and Obama got an apartment at a sixth-floor walkup on East 94th Street. Siddiqi managed to get the apartment thanks to subterfuge.

Siddiqi said his female friends thought Obama was “a hunk.” “We were always competing,” he said. “You know how it is. You go to a bar and you try hitting on the girls. He had a lot more success. I wouldn’t outcompete him in picking up girls, that’s for sure.”

The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn — one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights.

His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F1C46FDE-3048-5C12-00ED1702A906DC5F

Early in his campaign I was telling friends & family he was a Trojan Horse; I’d rather be wrong.

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.