Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

On Orly’s blog, which still appears to be doing random redirects, we find a posting by someone named “Bob” or “Mike”

No bias grounds ?  So hiring as your law clerk a person who works for the firm that defends Obama in all of these cases, in your opinion, does not present even the hint of bias or even unethical behavior on your part ?  Unbelievable.

I understand “BoB”’s anger but the facts show that only in a few cases President Obama had Perkins-Coie represent him. So I am not sure what “Bob” means by “in all of these cases”. Furthermore, Perkins Coie is a large lawfirm and finally, the Clerk, although starting in October, was likely hired well before the case came before Judge Carter. And finally, unless the clerk involved was actually helping Carter with this case, there is no bias or unethical behavior on Judge Carter’s part.  And if Orly believed it was improper, why did she fail to file a motion for Judge Carter to recuse himself? Even Orly may not have felt that there was a foundation for such and in fact, she does not even appear to be blaming the Judge as much as the DOJ.

(more…)

In her latest filings in Barnett, Orly cites the following to show that she should have standing because she filed after Obama was sworn in, despite having argued that she was suing Obama as a private person because she filed on the day of the Inauguration…

Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.

Claim 15: Your honor did not state that the undersigned was wrong in her assessment, but rather stated in presence of 50 observers, that if the undersigned does not serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, the US attorney will appeal and the case will be sitting in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, that if the undersigned counsel agrees to serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, Your Honor promises that the case will be heard on the merits and will not be dismissed on technicality.

In fact, the Court strongly hinted that Orly was wrong and that he had already ruled against her once and was about to do the same. Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction is not a technicality but rather renders any judgment void. In addition, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.

Orly still does not seem to understand the difference between personal jurisdiction: was the defendant properly served and subject matter jurisdiction.

From our friends at Politijab.com we learn that Orly’s motion states that:

7. Larry Sinclair was asked to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In the affidavit submitted to the Chicago police and in his book recently published, Mr. Sinclair has stated that Mr. Donald Young has contacted him repeatedly and stated that he had a homosexual relationship with Mr. Barack Obama and that Mr. Young was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds December 23, 2007 at the onset of 2008 Democratic primary elections. Any allegations of the undersigned attorney asking the witness to perjure himself are not only completely defamatory and prejudicial, but are void of any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair’s affidavit regarding Mr. Young’s homicide can be found filed with the Chicago PD and in his book. A copy of the Affidavit of Larry Sinclair and Coroners Certificate of Death of Donald Young is attached as an Exhibit..

Misleading and Nonresponsive. Sinclair did not allege that his testimony regarding the homocide of Donald Young was perjury. He accused Taitz of asking him to, also, testify that (a) that three members of Obama’s church were murdered; and (b) that he could identify a birthmark on Obama. Link. Taitz fails utterly to address those specific claims.

(more…)

Orly claims that

1. A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case …

Orly is wrong, Perkins Coie is not representing the defendant in the above case. Orly argues as well that Perkins Coie was the law firm defending President Obama in Keyes v Bowen. However, the firm representing the defendants was Strumwasser & Woocher. Late in the case, Robert Bauer applied to the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice. As far as I can tell, he was there not in official capacity representing Perkins Coie. In fact, the Judge ruled on the case at the same time he admitted Robert Bauer as Pro Hac Vice.

Robert Bauer, Perkins Coie,  did represent President Obama in the case Hollister v Soetoro. I also found the following reference:

Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg’s eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges. Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s alleged bodyguard and driver.

Judge Carter observed

The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. “[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (citing Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S. Ct. 451 (1909); Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538, 31 S. Ct. 485 (1911)).

(more…)

Judge Carter Ruled that

Plaintiffs have also named Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and Robert Gates as defendants. Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden,  and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.

(more…)

Orly’s motion for reconsideration is suffering from the same problems as her motion for reconsideration in front of Judge Land: She fails to mention any new, relevant material, instead accuses the Court of violating a variety of statutes, and furthermore continues to argue the case on its merits, where merits are irrelevant since the case was dismissed on lack of jurisdiction. In fact, she ignores most any of the Jurisdictional basis for the ruling. In addition, Orly seems to ignore the Local Rules of the Court regarding the filing of motions and the motion for reconsideration

(more…)

Things are getting stranger and stranger. Remember how initially Larry Sinclair flew to LA to testify on her behalf. However, when he arrived he decided to not appear since Orly asked him to testify to matters he had not filed an affidavit about. Larry Sinclair, who is one of several people who submitted sworn declarations with the Court about Orly’s behavior, has responded to Orly’s declaration:

Orly Taitz Perjures herself in recent “Declaration” filed in Barnett V Obama

According to Orly Taitz above declaration she has in fact committed perjury in the declaration itself. To wit:

1. Orly Taitz claims in paragraph 9 that she never had the opportunity to respond to and deny the statements of my SWORN affidavit. Mrs. Taitz claimed in a previous post following Judge Carters ruling on October 29, 2009 that she never had the opportunity to “read” or respond to said affidavit. Ms. Taitz was served a copy of the affidavit by U.S. First Class mail, postage pre-paid after three days of attempting to serve her by fax failed. Gary Kreep, Counsel for Plaintiffs Drake & Robinson, and the U.S. Attorney were served by fax the very day said affidavit was placed in the U.S. Mail to the Clerk of the Court.

Orly Taitz claims she did not have an opportunity to respond to said affidavit, yet she responded to it on her web site as well as in interviews with the OC newspaper. Orly Taitz made the decision not to respond to the affidavit with the court because she had told her supporters no such affidavit had been filed with the court.

Mrs. Taitz claims of Ex Parte Communication between me and Judge Donald O. Carter are also without merit. I did not write any “letter(s)” of any kind to the Court or to Judge Carter. I filed the single affidavit, which I stand by, with the Court because Orly Taitz requested I go into Judge Carters Court and give false testimony.

(more…)