In The
Supreme Court of the United States
Rhodes
v.
MacDonald
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949-683-5411
ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS
Questions posed
1. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?
2. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?
3. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?
4. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?
5. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?
6. Can the courts indefinitely evade the issue of eligibility of US president, while endangering the well-being of the public?
7. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?
8. What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?
AFFIRMATION OF JURISDICTION
Applicant respectfully submit to this Honorable Court that she had brought this emergency application directly from a final judgment from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Original case Rhodes v MacDonald 4:09-CV-106 was heard by US District Court Judge Clay D. Land (Hereinafter Land) in the middle District of GA (Exhibits1. 2, 3), Appeal in 11th circuit, Case # 09-14698.(Exhibit 10)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This emergency application is brought to this Honorable Court from a final decision of the Honorable Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals denying reversal of sanctions assessed against the applicant by District Court Judge Clay D. Land in retaliation for her bringing to his courtroom a second case on behalf of a member of US military officer questioning the legality of deployment orders issued by Barack Hussein Obama, who refused to unseal any of his vital records and never qualified as a legitimate President and Commander in Chief, based on Article 2, §1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Application for stay of sanctions
The appellant in this case is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, seeking a stay and reversal of the $20,000 Rule 11 sanctions assessed against her by Judge Clay D. Land in the Middle District of GA. Rule 11 sanctions are typically applied when the case is not sufficiently investigated by the counsel prior to bringing it to court. The facts of the underlying case Rhodes v MacDonald 4:09-CV-106 Middle District of GA were researched for a year. Licensed investigators were used, Taitz has reached the highest ranks of the military in her investigation of the case. It was not a case of anything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay D. Land to silence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, an attempt to instill fear in each and every attorney, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US military challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. She is seeking a stay and reversal of sanctions, as well as limited rule 11 discovery, to show that her actions were not frivolous, but rather reasonable and justified, that is not only not frivolous, but is the most important case today and possibly most important in US history, as sanctions were asserted to obfuscate illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama for US presidency. Land’s order can only be characterized as a legal “hit job”. Land really wanted to deter any further legal actions against Obama. He started his order with a statement comparing Taitz to Alice in Wonderland and saying that just saying so, does not make it so. Unfortunately, Land did not think of the underlying case, where Obama is saying, that he is a legitimate President and Commander in Chief, however in light of the fact that multiple experts show him using Social Security numbers of others, not having a valid Social Security number of his own, not willing to unseal his original 1961 birth certificate with the name of the doctor and hospital, just saying he is legitimate, does not make it so, does not make him legitimate and discovery is warranted. Taitz was subjected to ridicule and insults on account of Land christening her “Alice in Wonderland”. She was even put on the hit list of Southern Poverty Law Center under the name Alice in Wonderland. While Taitz appreciates Land’s fondness of Lewis Carroll, it is really important for Land to wake up from his slumber and sweet dreams about Alice in Wonderland and appreciate the fact that US military did not fall in the rabbit hole and is not looking for an adventure, but is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting real Radical Muslim Terrorists, and it is important for the military officers, as well as the whole nation to know if the Commander in Chief is Legitimate, and where does his allegiance lie. While citizens of this country do not expect Caroll’s mathematical abilities to be exhibited on the bench, never the less, they do expect more than the Lilliput deductive reasoning and legal analysis in ascertaining that, when the Military pressures a defense contractor to fire a decorated officer and an active reservist from his $120,000 a year job in retaliation for questioning legitimacy of Obama in court, that indeed represents an injury in fact that warrants discovery.
Background of the case
Taitz has done extensive research for over a year and provided the court with information, showing that Barack Hussein Obama not only didn’t provide any proof of his Natural Born Citizen status, but also used multiple Social Security numbers of deceased individuals, as well as numbers never assigned. Taitz has presented the trial court with an affidavit from Mr. Neil Sankey, a licensed investigator, former Scotland Yard officer, working with the elite anti organized crime and anti communist proliferation units. (Exhibit 4). This report shows that according to National databases Choice Point and Lexis Nexis, there are multiple Social Security Numbers connected to the name Barack Obama and Barry Obama. None of these numbers were issued in the State of Hawaii, where Mr. Obama claims to have been born. Selective Service official on line records (Exhibit 11) show Mr. Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was issued in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890. Even today Mr. Obama is residing in the White House, using this Social Security number, which not only points to his foreign birth, as typically individuals not born in this country use Social security numbers of others, but it is also an indication of multiple crimes committed, such as Social security fraud, Elections Fraud and Identity Theft. Any other citizen of this country would not be allowed to get away with such crimes. Any other citizen would be serving a lengthy prison term for such crimes. It is only a testament to utter corruption in the Judiciary, that such crimes were allowed to go on and attorneys like Taitz were intimidated, harassed and subjected to retaliation in the form of sanctions and threat to her license for bringing forward evidence of such crimes.
Taitz has brought two cases on behalf of members of the US military, seeking stay of their deployment pending verification of legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s status as the President and Commander in Chief. Both of these cases were heard by Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus GA.
The First Action was brought on behalf of a member of active reserves Stefan Cook. Upon revocation of Major Cook’s orders, Judge Land has dismissed the case, refusing to consider the fact that Major Cook was also fired from his position as a defense contractor employee in a clear retaliation for his filing the above legal action against Barack Obama, the court also refused to consider the fact that two other high ranked officers: a Major General and a Lt. Colonel have joined the above action and an argument was brought forward that this is a case of a repeated violation of a Constitutional right for redress of grievances, which evades judicial review every time such orders are revoked, as well as an argument that revocation of orders to deploy in light of request to produce documents attesting to Obama’s legitimacy indirectly indicate that the military has nothing to show, which undermines the military.
A second case was brought on behalf of an active duty Flight Surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes. While in the first case the military could justify revocation of the orders by the fact that Major Cook was a reservist, this argument would not fly with an active military, so the military and judiciary has subjected both the plaintiff and her attorney Taitz to intimidation and retaliation. Initially captain Rhodes was not allowed to attend her hearing and threatened with court martial (Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Captain Rhodes) as the attorney for the Department of Defense lied in court claiming that she wasn’t at the first hearing because she was no longer interested in pursuing the litigation. Later Judge Land dismissed the case based on the Doctrine of Abstention, stating that he does not want to get involved in the internal matters of the military and assessed the cost of litigation upon the plaintiff. Potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been assessed for the three attorneys representing the US attorney’s office, Pentagon and Fort Benning, where used as a leverage against the plaintiff to convince her not to appeal and abruptly withdraw from the case. At the same time Land has assessed $20,000 worth of sanctions against Taitz, claiming violation of Rule 11. Sanctions were appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal denied with one sentence, stating that the appeal was not convincing. No explanation was provided, as to what was found to be unconvincing.
Legal Argument
Sanctions are inconsistent with Rule 11
Typically rule 11th sanctions are assessed when an attorney does not perform sufficient inquiry. In this case Taitz worked around the clock for a year and obtained more information than anyone else on the planet in regards to Obama’s illegitimacy for the US presidency and in regard to massive fraud perpetrated by Mr. Obama in placing his name on the ballot and obfuscating all of his vital records. Judge Land states in the introduction to his order that “Rule 11 sanctions prohibit a lawyer from asserting claims or legal positions that are not well-founded under existing law or through the modifications, extension, or expansion of existing law”. Land failed to point any single claim made by Taitz that would violate any single law.
Land stated that per Rule 11 an attorney should “not clog the court with frivolous motions or appeals”, however Land did not point to anything specifically frivolous in the motions filed by Taitz. His final ruling in the underlying case was that he will not proceed with the case for the reason of abstention, as he does not want to get involved in the matters of the military. The doctrine of abstention is used only in certain cases. In a similar case of Mindes , 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir 1971) circuit court of appeals has put forward specific guidelines and a three prong test, according to which abstention would not be appropriate. If, as in the case at hand, the plaintiff has
In Rhodes
Taitz fully complied with the requirements of the Mindes guidelines, and not only sanctions were not appropriate, but an underlying decision by judge Land was inappropriate and unsupported by law, by the Constitutional and by precedents. Moreover, even if assuming arguendo an underlying decision by Judge Land would somehow be considered valid and supported by law, it still does not mean that bringing the case to court was frivolous, as there was a clear possibility of Rhodes falling into same category as Mindes. As such sanctions were not justified based on law and facts.
Taitz was born and raised in the Communist totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, where no one single attorney was ever able to get a judgment against the Soviet Rulers and the regime. No Constitutional attorney was able to uphold any Constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, as those rights were routinely violated by the regime and the judiciary. It didn’t mean that the legal actions by the Constitutional attorneys were frivolous. It simply meant that the whole country descended in the darkness of tyranny. Similarly, allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?” This is the most dangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and not having a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.
He further states that “Rule 11 also prohibits an attorney from using the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of legitimate legal cause of action”. Again, Land did not provide an example of anything that Taitz has done that was unrelated to the cause of action. She simply represented her client, Flight Surgeon Capt. Connie Rhodes and her request for discovery and judicial determination and declaratory relief in regards to legitimacy of the Commander in Chief in light of the fact, that Mr. Obama, Commander in Chief, has used multiple social security numbers, according to national databases and in light of the fact that he never unsealed his original birth certificate, in light of the fact that the Abbreviated Certification of Live Birth that was produced recently, in 2007, did not have any specific information: no name of the doctor, no name of the hospital, no signatures. Her client testified on the stand that, as a doctor she could not believe that one can be born in this country and not have a live birth file in the hospital and a proper hospital birth certificate with the name of the attending physician, name of the hospital and signatures. Taitz was justified in demanding verification of legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. There was absolutely nothing brought in the pleading and in the hearing in court that justified an assertion by Land that Taitz used the court for purpose unrelated to the litigation. Therefore, the underlying assertion and the conclusion were an error of fact.
In his order of sanctions Land intentionally misrepresented each and every fact of the case. Land started by misrepresenting the prior case of Major Cook, a reservist, who was also questioning legitimacy of Barack Obama, and who was also represented by Taitz. Land stated that Taitz tried to use the legal process as a “foundation for her political agenda”. It is sad and appalling that a federal judge will consider adherence to US Constitution to be a “political agenda.” This is not a political agenda, it is the Supreme law of the land that Land took an oath to defend. Land stated that “she (Taitz) seeks to use the court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts to force the president to produce a birth certificate that is satisfactory to her and her followers”. In reality Taitz has presented Judge Land with overwhelming evidence that Obama has never presented his original birth certificate, that is still sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii (if it even exists). This is of particular importance, since the State of Hi has statute 338-17 that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificate; statute 338-5 that allows one to obtain a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only; statute 338-6 that allows one to get a late birth certificate. Taitz has also presented to the court affidavits from licensed investigators, showing that according to numerous national databases Barack Obama has used multiple Social Security numbers, none of which was issued in HI. Taitz has presented an affidavit from a licensed forensic document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines (Exhibit 5), who attested to the fact that abbreviated (short version) Certification Of Live Birth, (hereinafter COLB) cannot be considered genuine without examining the original birth certificate, currently sealed in HI. All of this information coupled with Obama’s refusal to present any vital records in spite of over a hundred legal actions filed in the courts all over the country, provided reasonable basis to assume Obama’s illegitimacy to the US presidency and position of the Commander in Chief and the need for judicial determination of the above issue prior to the deployment of the US military pursuant to Obama’s orders. This issue was clearly presented to Land, who simply has chosen to ignore all the facts of the case .
Judge Land intentionally misrepresented the ultimate relief that the plaintiff in that case was seeking. Judge Land stated that “the Army has revoked the deployment orders. As a result Major Cook received the ultimate relief that he purportedly sought in the legal action: a revocation of the deployment order.” The plaintiff, major Cook, was a decorated army officer, who has served in the field of battle. He wanted to serve, however he did not want to serve under the illegitimate Commander in Chief. The misrepresentation of these facts was not only intellectually dishonest, but a vicious attack on a decorated Army Officer, calculated to denigrate him in the eyes of the public and negatively affect his prospects to the future employment. Misrepresentation of the facts also served to promote Judge Land’s agenda of further vilifying Taitz.
Judge Land improperly ignored the fact that reservist Major Cook was also fired from his position as a defense contractor employee as a result of the pressure applied by the military on his employer, pursuant to his filing of the above complaint. There was an outstanding issue of wrongful termination of Major Cook, of violation of whistleblower statutes. Judge Land ignored large part of the case, where two other high ranking officers a Major General and a Lt. Colonel joined the case, and Taitz argued that this is a an issue of violation of Constitutional rights, that repeats itself, but evades review, akin to Roe v Wade. This is an issue of National importance, however yet again Judge Land has refused to address any of the substantial issues of the case, but rather used it to try to intimidate the members of the military.
Captain Rhodes case
Yet again in his order Land misrepresents the facts. As stated previously, Taitz has followed the precedent of Mindes and showed the court that she exhausted all means of redress within the military, that it was an issue of violation of constitutional rights of a member of the military, it was not a technical issue, and therefore subject to review and not subject to abstention. Taitz has provided the court with the argument, whereby the members of the US military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article 2, section 1. Demanding the members of the US military to violate the oath of office and serve under the illegitimate Commander in Chief, whose orders will be illegal is a damage in itself. Judge Land has stated that Taitz has resorted to political rhetoric. In reality, as the pleadings and transcripts have shown, Taitz has provided the court with the reasonable examples of members of the military following illegal orders. Taitz has provided the court with the example of three children, members of her husband’s family, who were killed in the Holocaust, when Nazi officers told these three young kids to dig their own graves, shot them and threw them into those graves. Judge Land called those statements “political rhetoric”, even though those were appropriate examples of consequences of members of the military following unlawful orders.
Land claimed that the fact that Capt. Rhodes questioned the deployment order, but not other orders was suspect. In reality this was logical and appropriate. It showed that Capt. Rhodes did not act frivolously, but rather acted only when an important order came down the chain of command from Obama, as the Commander in Chief, and when this order related to her personally. Clearly, when one is asked to risk her life pursuant an order, one has standing to bring a legal action to court and seek judicial determination of validity of such order, one can show imminent harm associated with such an order. It was an appropriate action, brought at an appropriate time, in an appropriate jurisdiction. The court was respectfully asked for a limited discovery and declaratory relief, which could be accomplished within one day. Instead, Land has chosen to use his position as a pulpit to harass and denigrate the plaintiff and Taitz. While it was clear that Judge Land’s actions were calculated to calm down the military in relation to Obama’s legitimacy, and preserve the scheduled deployment, at the end of the day Judge Land’s actions only added wood to the fire, added disgust towards the actions of the administration and the judiciary. Currently, yet another officer, Lt. Col Terry Lakin is facing a court martial for challenging the same type of order. Other recent events show that Taitz was correct in her assertions, as on May 25, 2010 the parliament of Kenya issued a transcript of the parliamentary session clearly indicating that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, which means that he was not eligible for US presidency and Taitz was correct in representing her client, challenging her deployment orders based on such ineligibility. (Exhibit 13, March 25, 2010 Session of the Parliament of the Republic of Kenya, p31 Speech of minister of Lands James Orengo)
Land believed that based on his threats Taitz will abandon her client and will not pursue her clients interests. Taitz, is bound by duty of zealous representation of her client and filed proper motions for stay of deployment pending reconsideration. Land sanctioned her $20,000 for filing that motion.
As stated, based on the Mindes precedent not only was the action not frivolous, but Land had a duty to intervene.
Land has brought an argument, that Taitz did not show damage to her client and that “if the President were to be found not to be eligible for office, that would not mean that all soldiers in the military would be authorized to disregard their duty as American soldiers and disobey their command.” This is an absurd argument. When a member of the US military is forced to violate her oath of office and serve under illegitimate orders, that represents damage. If one were to follow Judge Land’s logic, than tomorrow somebody like Mahmud Ahmadinejad or the king of Saudi Arabia or Hugo Chavez can buy a Presidential election, and the members of US military will have zero recourse of questioning orders from such an anti-American usurper.
Another argument that Land brings in justifying the sanctions, is his claim that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The jurisdiction was proper for hearing the case, as Capt. Rhodes was deploying from Fort Benning, GA, she was asking to investigate evidence and ascertain whether fraud was committed. Even if arguendo Land didn’t have jurisdiction, it would have justified transferring the case to another jurisdiction, not sanctioning the attorney.
Yet another argument brought by Land was “…if the President were elected to the office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his constitutional disqualifications, then a mechanism exists for removing him from office. Except for the Chief Justice’s role in presiding over the trial in Senate, that mechanism does not involve the judiciary.” Again Judge Land intentionally misrepresents the case, as examination of the pleading clearly shows that he was never asked to remove the president from office, but he was asked to simply examine the evidence and make a declaratory relief. Such discovery would have been sufficient for ascertainment of legitimacy of deployment orders. Such determination could have been forward sua sponte to Congress and to the US attorney’s office. Yet again, such motion for declaratory relief is in no way justifies any sanctions against Counsel. The only reason for sanction was attempted intimidation of counsel and other counsel and attempt of preventing her from challenging Obama’s legitimacy.
Another totally absurd argument by Land “Perhaps he looks too young and says that he stopped counting birthdays from age thirty….should Miss. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate?” Taitz did not bring her law suit based on mere observation. She submitted an affidavit from a forensic document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, stating that Obama’s COLB posted on his web site cannot be considered genuine without examining the original. Taitz has produced an affidavit from a licensed investigator that according to National databases Obama used multiple social security numbers, none of which was issued in HI. Clearly the case was brought not based on something empirical as looks, but based on evidence. This argument brought by Land was unreasonable, it showed bias, misrepresented the facts and could not be justification for sanctions.
Major Cook case, Exception to mootness doctrine
Judge Land issued sanctions, referring to Rhodes v MacDonald and Cook v Good . Land claimed that the actions were frivolous and that Cook was moot after military revoked the deployment orders for Cook. Land erred in not considering the fact that injury sustained by the members of US military falls under a category of cases that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review”. In Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d Supreme Court of the US held the exception to mootness doctrine for violations “capable of repetition, yet evading review” applied because the Constitutional violation was likely to be repeated but would not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot… In oral argument the undersigned counselor equated this issue to Roe v Wade 410 US 113, 125, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and the issue of women being pregnant and not being able to have their case heard, as it was rendered moot after each delivery. In Oregon AdvocacyCtr v Mink, 322 F 3d 1101, 1118(9th Cir 2003) it was held that plaintiffs have standing if they are challenging an ongoing governmental policy, even if specific injury no longer exists. Here we have an ongoing policy of concealment of records of the Commander in Chief. To this point DC Circuit court held that when a complaint challenges an acknowledgement or apparent governmental policy, the government cannot prevail by arguing that the controversy became moot when the particular situation at issue resolved itself. Ukranian American Bar Assn’n v Baker, 893 F. 2d 1374, 1377 (DC Cir 1990). Two more officers joined Cook. Thousands of similar orders are issued on a daily basis. Recently a decorated Active Duty colonel of air force and a flight surgeon has decided to face court martial, rather than follow orders of illegitimate Commander in Chief. Clearly this issue is capable of repetition and evades any meaningful review on the merits. When judges around the country are creating an illusion of a hearing , but later state that they have no jurisdiction, or refuse to hear the case, claiming abstention doctrine, that does not constitute a hearing. Therefore, the court erred in dismissing underlying case of Cook v Good and erred later by assessing sanctions against Taitz.
Order by Judge Land shows clear bias.
The decision and order by Judge Land shows clear bias. Judge Land has used a pejorative term “birther”, describing Taitz as the leader of the “birther” movement. It is not only not justified, but totally despicable that a Federal judge would use the technique of Saul Alinsky in trying to insult, assault and marginalize an attorney. Land used his color of authority to attack Taitz personally and, as one fighting for verification of eligibility.
Land acted in a fashion unbecoming a judge, when he rudely tried to ridicule Taitz and assassinate her character. One of his statements was “perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the court should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.” Clearly there is a huge difference between actions of some eccentric person and attorney like Taitz bringing affidavits from licensed investigators and experts.” Affairs like Water –gate did not go unpunished. Obama-gate will not go unpunished. Land rudely called Taitz effords “antics”. In reality judge Land’s actions were antics. Massive fraud of American citizens perpetrated by Obama will be punished and history will not look kindly on judge Land’s antics and on any other judge who was aiding and abetting Obama’s massive fraud.
Judge Land has intentionally misrepresented the facts and attacked both Major Cook and Captain Rhodes. Both plaintiffs clearly stated that they willing to deploy and serve, provided that they are following legitimate orders. Judge Land intentionally misrepresented them as ones who do not want to serve.
The order of sanctions issued by Land on 10.13.09 ridicules the fact that Taitz mentioned Justice Thurgood Marshall. In reality there is no difference in what Justice Marshall was doing and what Taitz was doing in court. Justice Marshall was fighting to uphold the Constitutional rights of African –Americans. Taitz is fighting to uphold the Constitutional rights of every American citizen, a right of redress of grievances and having a judicial determination. She is fighting to make sure that three hundred and five million Americans have a real access to courts, have an ability to redress their grievances. She is fighting to make sure that each and every legal action where the citizens and members of the media try to verify eligibility of the president or another official can be heard on the merits, and not summarily dismissed, where every judge claims to have no jurisdiction and allows no standing to any citizens. She is leading a movement where citizens can get access of the real documents of the candidates, to the original birth certificate of Mr. Obama and original live birth file in the Kapiolani hospital, to make sure that the citizens of this Nation are not being defrauded by a person who obfuscates all of his vital records. It is mind boggling that Land could not see the importance of this movement and decided to fine Taitz for simply following the Constitution and representing the citizens who want their civil rights, their Constitutional rights upheld. If during the career of Thurgood Marshal, he would’ve encountered a judge like Clay D. Land, who would’ve fined him $20,000 for trying to protect the citizens’ constitutional rights, this would have put a stop to the civil right movement of the 50s and the 60s. Attorneys would have been scared, intimidated to represent the citizens who were trying to uphold their constitutional rights and someone like Barack Obama would have no chance of ever being anywhere near the ballot.
Fourteenth Amendment protection to due process and equal protection under the law
Land ridiculed Taitz notion that her clients deserved Fourteenth amendment protection. Ms. Ausprung, attorney for the Department of Defense argued that there is a difference between illegal orders and one not being legitimate occupant of the office. Her rational was, that even if Obama is not legitimate, it does not make the orders issued by him illegal. Land upheld this logic and attacked Taitz in his order claiming that Taitz cheapened the memory of Thurgood Marshall by comparing her legal actions to ones of Marshall, because Marshall protected the rights of the black children, who were sent to inferior schools, while Captain Rhodes is an adult, who is refusing deployment based on the speculation that the Commander in Chief is not legitimate.
First of all, Taitz presented legal evidence and not speculation. Second of all, does Land’s order mean that the equal protection rights exist only for children and not for adults? Do those rights exist only for blacks and not for whites? If that is the case, than we have reverse discrimination, it means that we throw away the notion of equal protection, that we lay it at the altar of political correctness.
Now, let’s look at this argument of the order being valid regardless of whether the person giving the order has legitimacy in occupying such franchise, or whether he is an illegitimate usurper.
Let’s imagine for a moment that someone, a janitor, decides to play a prank. He puts on a black robe and sits on the bench and signs an order for an officer to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, let’s say he signs such order when judge Land is on a bathroom brake. Say, such officer brings a complaint, that the order was illegal. Does it mean, that if the order seems to be legal on it’s face, it is actually legal, regardless of whether the person, who signed it, is actually a judge or a janitor playing a prank? Does an attorney for such officer supposed to be sanctioned $20,000 for merely bringing the claim to court and asking to evaluate it’s validity?
Aside from being an attorney, Taitz is also a Doctor of Dental surgery. Let’s say one decides to do surgery on a patient without having any medical training or license. If for the grace of god such patient doesn’t die and miraculously is not injured, does it mean that he has no recourse? Does it mean that his attorney will be charged $20,000 in sanctions for bringing this matter to court?
If you bring any example, from any aspect of life, it is crystal clear, that such logic represents complete insanity. The whole world is looking at the United States in complete bewilderment, not understanding what mental disorder has afflicted US judges and US attorneys and other officials in allowing such insanity to go on for a year and a half now.
Sanctions are unconstitutional as infringement on free speech
Every US citizen has a First Amendment right to free speech. Additionally, attorneys have a right to engage in a practice of law, which represents a form of commercial speech. Actions by Land represented an assault on such protected speech of both Taitz and her clients. When a Federal Judge uses his gavel as a cane for public flogging of an attorney, who is a Civil rights defender, who works pro bono to protect her clients’ First Amendment rights to free speech and for redress of grievances, such federal judge betrays his oath of office and aids and abets an onslaught on the US Constitution, abets conversion of the Constitutional Republic into tyranny.
Sanctions infringe upon the right of the citizens and members of the military to have legal representation.
Members of US military are bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, they have a Constitutionally protected first amendment right for redress of grievances. They have tried to address their grievance within the agency, within the military, but were denied such right, when the highest legal authority, Legal Counsel of Admiral Mulin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written that the issue of legality of the Commander in Chief cannot be resolved within the military, since Commander in Chief is a civilian(Exhibit 13). Members of the military are within their right to seek redress of their grievance in Federal Court and use services of an attorney. Federal Judiciary has a Constitutional duty to address those grievances and provide an answer. Incidentally, currently Obama regime is suing the State of Arizona and might be instigating a secession of Arizona and other states and a new Civil War, by claiming that Arizona statute 1070 is unconstitutional. Knowing that AZ 1070 is a mere reflection of Federal Immigration statutes and no one was harmed by it and no one is in imminent injury of being harmed by it, one wonders “Per Que Warranto?” By what warrant, by what authority Obama administration is doing it? Absent real concern of Mr. Obama being afraid to be deported, while on a trip to Sedona or Grand Canyon, one wonders: “How does one, who refuses to unseal his vital records and respond to any Constitutional grievances from the citizens, can question Constitutionality of any law, statute or ordinance?” How can Federal Judiciary defend something so indefensible?
Taitz was forced to seek protection of the UN
As Taitz was subjected to capricious sanctions by Judge Land, as well as a full tirade of insults coming from Judge Land, it became fodder for the pro-Obama far left media to bombard Taitz with onslaught of insults and harassment. She and her whole family were subjected to intimidation and harassment. There were daily attacks of hacking and destruction of her websites, hacking into her Pay-pal account, tampering with her car, whereby an emissions hose was disconnected. Taitz could not find any assistance of law enforcement and was forced to file a complaint with United Nations Commissions on Civil Rights Defenders, as well as become a member of the International Criminal Bar in Hague. Not addressing the issue of sanctions, assessed against an attorney, who was defending Constitutional rights of citizens in the face of trampling of such rights by some in power, means green light on attacks, intimidation and harassment by thugs in the media and in the populace at large on any Constitutional attorney.
Stay of sanctions is warranted
Irreparable harm- no monetary award will compensate for the harm suffered
Sanctions assessed by Land constitute an irreparable harm to Taitz. Land not only assessed sanctions against Taitz and verbally assaulted and insulted her, but he also submitted his order to the CA bar with the clear intent to undermine her law license and take her livelihood away from her. If sanctions are not stayed and reversed, there will be an irreparable harm to the professional license of Taitz and her ability to earn livelihood.
Due to verbal assault by Land, Taitz was subjected and is subjected to horrific insults by the media. Her reputation is irreparably harmed, if sanctions are not stayed. No financial compensation will ever repair this harm.
Not only Taitz, but her family is subjected to horrific attacks. Her children got e-mails stating: “You poor kid, your mom will be thrown in prison, your mom will be thrown in a mental institution”. Someone hired a deranged artist, who was painting inappropriate paintings of Taitz under the title “Birther Orly Taitz”, where Taitz was depicted being nude and giving birth, and such paintings were forwarded to Taitz’ children, in order to achieve maximum emotional distress for the whole family. Those highly offensive paintings were posted all over the Internet and in some newspapers. If sanctions are not stayed, there will be irreparable harm in the form of continuous emotional distress to the whole family of Taitz.
Since Land has forwarded his order to the CA bar, there can be irreparable harm in the form of negative sanctions against her license.
Taitz’s car was tampered with, a fumes emissions hose was disconnected by someone. Lives of Taitz and her whole family are in danger. Taitz’s web sites, Pay-pal and host server were repeatedly hacked and sabotaged. As an example, MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews appeared in prime time, calling Taitz a “malignancy” and stating that “she needs to be tied like a witch to the stake.” Later, some insane Obama supporters were sending her e-mails and comments, stating that she needs to be burned at the stake.
Staying and reversing the sanctions will send a clear message to law enforcement, that Taitz’ case is not frivolous and there is a need for assistance on part of law enforcement for Taitz and her family.
Comparison of Hardships
Land has issued sanctions “sua sponte”. No party asked for those sanctions. US attorney’s office didn’t even file an opposing brief or opinion brief. Land will suffer no hardship, if sanctions imposed by him will be stayed and reversed.
Sanctions are against Public Policy
Sanctions imposed by Land are a clear attack on the First Amendment Right of Free Speech and Redress of Grievances, it is an attack on Civil, Constitutional rights of members of US military to seek legal representation in court and address their grievances in regards to constitutionality of orders originating from Commander in Chief. These sanctions are a clear assault on Constitutional rights of US citizens. These sanctions are a clear assault on the rights of Civil right Defenders to bring legal actions to court and seek meaningful hearing with production of evidence and judicial determination based on evidence presented and based on the Constitution. For too long this country has been on a slippery slope of using Federal courts to routinely deny US citizens meaningful access to courts, as most constitutional challenges to actions of overbearing Federal government are being routinely denied on technical grounds of standing and jurisdiction. In this clear case, there was jurisdiction and standing, as injury to Taitz’ clients was imminent, they were deployed from the central district of GA and they exhausted all available means of redress within the military, as Taitz reached the highest judicial officers in the military by getting a response from Captain James Crawford, Legal Counsel to Admiral Mullin, Chairman of joint Chiefs of Staff. As outlined supra, not only Land had jurisdiction, he had a duty to hear the case on the merits. If these sanctions are allowed to stand, it will serve as a precedent, where any judge will attack an attorney, who is a civil rights defender, simply to please the President and quash dissidents in the US. This precedent will lead to total annexation and usurpation of civil rights in U.S
Actions by Judge Land in denying Motion to Recuse and Motion for
Enlargement of Time were improper
Judge Land erred in his assertions , that the injury was not imminent.
In both cases, viewed by judge Land, the injury was not hypothetical but imminent. Both Major Cook and Captain Rhodes are members of US military and were deployed to the military theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. Both officers were supposed to deploy in the matter of a couple of days. They were required to risk their lives and possibly take lives of others, pursuant to Obama’s orders. Risking one’s life based on an order, that is likely to be illegitimate, or even possibly illegitimate, constitutes an imminent injury and an action, asking for a hearing not frivolous. As such sanctions were not justified, were an error of fact and law and an abuse of Judicial discretion.
Decision by Judge Land encouraged more litigation and encouraged revolting by the members of the US military
While actions by Taitz were reasonable in order to put an end to further litigation of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency, the actions of Land only inflated the matter and became a reason of more litigation.
Currently a highly decorated army surgeon Lt. Col Lakin is facing court martial and putting on the line eighteen years of honorable service and refusing redeployment to Iraq based on Obama’s illegitimacy for US presidency and position of Commander in Chief.
This court martial could have been avoided and further unrest in the military could have been avoided if Land would have reviewed the case on the merits instead of using his position to silence free speech of ones who legitimately were seeking verification of Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the Commander in chief.
Actions by Judge Land constituted violation of judicial ethics
Judge Land has deemed Taitz legal actions to be frivolous and sanctionable based on his own judicial misconduct in both Cook and Rhodes cases, where actions of Land constituted violation of Judicial ethics and abuse of judicial discretion.
1. Judge Land violated Judicial ethics and showed bias in not giving Taitz time to respond to the motion to dismiss in Cook v Good. Taitz didn’t even have time to read the motion. These actions showed extreme bias and lack of judicial integrity, as well as abuse of judicial discretion.
2. Judge Land abused his judicial discretion and violated judicial ethics in not considering two more plaintiffs, who joined the action of the underlying case of Cook v MacDonald.
3. Judge Land abused Judicial discretion by completely disregarding the fact that the issue of Obama’s illegitimacy to US presidency is one that is repeated, but continues to evade judicial review.
4. Judge Land abused his Judicial discretion in refusing to consider valid arguments, specifically the fact that the military pressured Simteck, a small defense contractor, employer of Major Cook, to fire him from his $120,000 job in retaliation for the fact that he filed a legal action, questioning Obama’s legitimacy to US presidency and position of Commander in Chief. Similarly, judge Land abused his judicial discretion in not considering pressure on Captain Rhodes, applied by the military, in order for her to dismiss her legal action and Taitz, as her counsel.
Actions by judge Land are against Public Policy, endanger the public and endanger National Security
Taitz has presented Land information, showing that Barack Obama used multiple Social Security numbers of deceased individuals. Since the Commander in Chief has all of the US weapons arsenal is in his hands, particularly Nuclear arsenal, actions by the military officers and their attorney in ascertaining identity and legitimacy of the Commander in Chief are reasonable and not frivolous. Actions by a judge in attacking and harassing such members of the military and attacking their attorney with sanctions are unreasonable, go against Public Policy, endanger national security and need to be investigated and prosecuted by the Public Integrity Unit of the department of Justice
Actions by Judge Land were akin to Aiding and Abetting Felony and Misprision of felony.
Exhibits submitted by Taitz showed significant likelihood of numerous felonies committed by Obama:
The fact that Judge Land refused to review any evidence, and attempted to intimidate Taitz with sanctions, assassinate her character and endanger her law license, means that he intentionally used his authority to aid and abet those crimes. If this court does not reverse such sanctions and does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.
Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?
As shown in this brief, Land’s order, loaded with insults and personal attacks and $20,000 sanctions amounted to nothing more, than persecution for bringing to his court a Civil Rights violation case. Does a federal judge possess power to do so? There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes allowing such persecution. What can an attorney do to combat such persecution? Taitz is appealing to your Honor, Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice, as well as Civil rights Commission in Washington DC, Civil Rights defenders Commission with the United Nations and International Criminal Bar with the hope that sanity, civility and respect for Civil Constiututional rights will prevail.
Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and Federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted by a presiding Federal Judge?
Today United States of America is at war in two enormous military theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lives of our soldiers and officers, as well as civilians in those regions are at stake. Today, more than ever those soldiers need to know that they have a back: that they have a Commander in Chief they can trust and judges, who are fair and decide grievances based on the law and the Constitution and not their narrow personal interest and adherence to the administration no matter what. When members of the military face bias, lack of impartiality and outright personal attacks, that Major Cook and Captain Rhodes experienced, they become demoralized. Taitz brought on behalf of her clients important and reasonable questions, specifically a question of legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. The best and the only way to bring back the trust and respect towards the system of Justice in the minds of those soldiers, is to respond to their grievances and to order Rule 11 discovery, to show and prove that their grievances were not frivolous.
Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?
At the TRO hearing Land lashed out at Taitz, when she brought forward Thurgood Marshal and his fight for civil rights. Land considered the crusade by Thurgood Marshal to be legitimate, but crusade on behalf of the members of US military not to be legitimate, to be frivolous. A question arises: Can a Federal judge pick and choose: whose civil rights are important and whose rights are not important. When Federal judges pick and chose, it creates discrimination. It creates the worst kind of discrimination: not discrimination by an individual, but a discrimination by the government, by the establishment. We witnessed so many examples, when policy by the government created legalized discrimination and persecutions against groups of people: holocaust comes to mind, as well as slaughter of Armenian Christians in Turkey, massacres in Sudan and in Obama’s native Kenya. Lady Liberty is blind for a reason: military officer ready to be shipped to the Middle east from fort Benning GA, has as many civil rights and protection, as a school kid starting a school year in Columbus Georgia, or Alabama or Mississippi. Justice and adherence to the law and Constitution have to be factually correct and legally correct, not politically correct. If this is not happening, the nation will simply lose trust in the system and will take matters in its own hands.
Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?
Not long ago, in January of 2010 a well known judge in Mississippi, Bobby Delaughter ended up pleading guilty and sentenced to 18 months in Federal prison for public corruption, giving a decision to a party, who could help him reach a higher court.
In cases at hand situation was similar and even worse. Taitz represented clients who challenged legitimacy of the sitting president. Who is in the best position to give a Federal judge a promotion, but the sitting president. For this reason alone, Land had to give the jury an opportunity to decide on the merits . When there was a clear indication of bias and Taitz requested recusal of Land, it was his duty to avoid impartiality or even appearance of impartiality and recuse himself. Moreover, a witness approached Taitz and forwarded to her a sworn affidavit, stating that he observed Attorney General Eric Holder at the coffee house across the street from the courthouse during Cook v Good hearing conducted by Land. Taitz has no ability to ascertain if attorney General Holder was there or not, however it was possible, and in the spirit of zealous representation of her clients she had to raise this issue. Due to all of the above mentioned reasons, Land had to recuse himself. Land did none of the above. As such he violated the rules of judicial ethics.
Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?
Today the whole nation lives in some type of surreal “No Man’s Land.” As noted above Mr. Obama has never provided any vital records that would be accepted by any court of law. Over a 100 legal actions were filed. No judge assumed jurisdiction. While judge David O. Carter in Central District of CA initially assumed jurisdiction, he relinquished it after Mr. Obama succeeded in placing one of attorneys from his defense firm Perkins-Coie as a law clerk for judge Carter. Desperate citizens have organized into citizen Grand Juries, those Grand Juries indicted Mr. Obama of voter fraud and elections fraud, and in some cases treason, yet no DA, no US attorney no judge assumed jurisdiction to act upon those indictments. Not long ago a prominent African-American minister and talk show host, Dr. Manning conducted a trial upon those indictments, yet again, findings of that trial fell on deaf ears. At a recent planning commission hearing in New York your Honor has stated that the Supreme Court has been evading the eligibility issue. As long as the courts are evading the issue, there is an incentive in attacking attorneys like Taitz, members of the military, dissenting US attorneys and others. When an individual can get in the top position of power without providing any vital records and judiciary is evading hearing this issue on the merits, each and every member of the public is de facto reduced to a level of a serf, a slave. There is a need for the courts to address this issue.
Can the courts indefinitely evade the issue of eligibility of US president, while endangering the well-being of the public?
There is an enormous importance in the issue of eligibility. This issue will not get resolved on its own. We live in the time of one party control of both houses of congress and the White House. We live during the times, when ballot counting is left to the electronic scanners and voting machines, which are known to be susceptible to rigging and hacking. One of such companies, Sequoia, from 2005-2007 was partially owned by the government of Venezuella through front company Smartmatic. We don’t know how many back doors or trap doors were installed in this program, but we know those doors lead to Venezuella. In this environment there is not only a danger to what is happening to the country today, but also to our Constitutional freedoms in future, where any future elections can be rigged, suspended, or a number of terms one stays in office of the President or Commander in Chief can be altered, as it was done in the regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuella or Fidel Castro in Cuba. Any and all Constitutional protections can be suspended by some provisions of the Patriot Act. There is an enormous uncertainty in this nation, there is a need for the Justices of the Supreme Court to address the issue that they seem to avoid for so long.
Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?
When one comes to the realization that there is a need to hear the issue of eligibility of the US president on the merits and that the Nation requires this issue to be heard in the near future, it becomes clear that there has to be a determination of the Supreme court, as to whose obligation is it to verify proper vital records and verify eligibility of the President. It seems that this issue simply fell through the cracks. Different states and federal agencies are playing a game of political football. Nobody is willing to hold this hot potato long enough to figure out, if it’s really cooked. Secretaries of state are not willing to check the records and point to federal agencies, FBI and US attorneys point to Congress, Congress points to the courts. DNC simply took out the words “eligible according to the Constitution” from the certification of the Candidate in an attempt to get out of their liability in such a manner. There has to be a determination by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, whether a person, holding the highest executive position in the land is eligible and legitimate, and what state and federal agencies are supposed to verify such eligibility in the future. There has to be a determination by the Supreme court, as to what is the exact meaning of the Natural Born Citizen.
What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?
With Obama’s ascendance to US presidency, the whole Nation became engulfed in the discussion “What does Natural Born citizen mean”. If hypothetically Obama possess a valid original type written birth certificate from Hawaii, with the name of the doctor and the name of the hospital, does that make him a Natural born US citizen, is it sufficient in light of the fact, that his father never was a US citizen and in light of the fact that at birth Obama had a British citizenship based on British Nationality act of 1948, as his father was a British protected person from a British colony of Kenya. Later at age two, on December 11, 1963 Obama became a Kenyan citizen, as Kenya got its Independence, and around age five he got an Indonesian citizenship, as his mother married an Indonesian citizen, and the family moved to Indonesia. There has to be a determination by the highest court in the land, whether one with split allegiance at birth and through life can be considered a Natural Born citizen. Many seem to believe that one is a Natural born citizen, provided he was born in this county, regardless of citizenship of his parents and regardless of their allegiance. Many point to a definition in the Black Law dictionary, that defines a Natural Born Citizen, as one simply born in the Country. Not long ago the Supreme Court heard the case of District of Columbia v Heller where it painstakingly reviewed the initial intent of the framers of the Constitution in regards to the second amendment. But what about Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution? What was the original intent there? With hundreds of thousands of anchor babies and the issue of legal and illegal immigration on the front burner, there is an urgent need to resolve this issue. Some quote the 14th amendment. But what was the intent of the 14th amendment? It did provide citizenship to slaves, who didn’t have it at the time, however it is questionable and debatable whether it envisioned granting
US citizenship and full benefits of free education and all the welfare benefits to millions of anchor babies of people who are here illegally or even legally for a short time on a tourist visa or a student visa. Even if, arguendo, one comes to a conclusion that 14 th amendment guarantees US citizenship to anyone, regardless of allegiance to other nations, it still does not mention Natural born status, that is needed for the US presidency. As many of followers of Taitz were sending Black law dictionaries to her, she traced all of the editions and found that the earliest Black Law dictionary was published some 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, so there was a need to find a legal treatise, a legal dictionary used by the framers of the Constitution. Such legal treatise happened to be the Law of Nations by well known Swiss diplomat and attorney Emer De Vatel. French and English versions of the Law of Nations were repeatedly used by Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution mentions the Law of Nations as a reference to source of powers of Congress in case of piracy at seas. Law of Nations defies “Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” Les Droit Des Gens ou Principes De Loi Naturelle, 1958. So, Vatelle’s answer to the age old question: where does allegience lie, is it in the genes, is it in the blood or is it the soil? The answer: it is both. Vattel is saying that it is “jus solis” and “jus sanguinis”. Was this definition consistent with the frame of mind of the founders of this Nation? Founders of this Nation were concerned about foreign usurpation. First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay famously warned George Washington about the danger of foreigners in the position of the Commander in Chief. Framer of the 14th amendment John a Bingham quoted as stating that “natural born citizens are ones, born in the US territory to parents who don’t owe allegiance to any other sovereignties”. So, while the framers of the Constitution provided for an exception for US citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a grandfather clause for the first presidents, who could not be natural born, it is very clear that Natural born meaning of one born in the country to citizen parents is the requirement for all the future presidents. It means, that even if Mr. Obama were to produce an original birth certificate from HI with the name of the doctor and the name of the hospital and were to provide an explanation, why is he using social security numbers from other states, he still is not eligible for US presidency due to his split allegiance and multiple citizenships from birth until now. It means that Taitz was correct in bringing this issue to court in front of judge Land on behalf of her clients Major Cook and Captain Connie Rhodes, it means that her actions were justified, not frivolous and not sanctionable. Even if it is found that Mr. Obama somehow miraculously can pass Constitutional muster for US Presidency, questions raised by Taitz were reasonable, appropriate, related to the duties of her clients and important to be resolved for future generations of Americans who hopefully will still have Constitutional right to elect a Constitutionally eligible president.
In summary: Sanctioned were not justified and represented an abuse of judicial discretion. The decision by Judge Land was nothing more but a hit job on a Civil Rights defender by a member of the judiciary, who was pandering to the administration. This decision was decried by the judiciary and media all over the world, as an example of start of tyranny in the United States, as an example of the dictatorial regime, where the citizens are prevented from a meaningful access to courts, where a person can get to the top position of power without providing any vital records to prove his legitimacy, and when judiciary is used as a tool to subdue citizens and prevent attorneys from upholding citizens’ rights in assessing legitimacy of such person at the pinnacle of power.
Wherefore the appellant respectfully requests:
1. stay and reversal of sanctions wrongfully assessed against her by Judge Clay D. Land
2. rule 11 limited discovery of Mr. Obama’ s vital records, to show that the legal action, for which Taitz was sanctioned was justified
3. sua sponte assignment to the Independent Prosecutor the information on the underlying case for purpose of investigation, if indeed a deal was made, where plaintiff Capt. Rhodes dismissed Taitz as her counsel in exchange for waiver of costs asserted against her by Judge Land and department of Defense.
3. sua sponte assignment to the independent Prosecutor and public integrity unit evidence of Obama’s illegitimacy to US presidency, provided in underlying cases of Cook v Good and Rhodes v MacDonald for prosecution under Title 18, §1961.
3. cost and reasonable fees of appeal.
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq
Independance Day
07.04.10
Applicant attests that everything in the above pleadings is true and correct to the best of her knowledge.
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Exhibits:
1. TRO request in Rhodes v MacDonald
2. Order by Judge Land
3. Transcripts from the hearings in Rhodes v MacDonald
4. Affidavit by Investigator Sankey, brought to demonstrate multiple social security numbers connected in the National databases to the name of Barack Obama. Neither of those numbers were issued in Hawaii.
5. Affidavit of Forensic Document Expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted to the District court, brought as evidence, that short form certification of life birth provided by Barack Obama to the public, cannot be considered as genuine without examining the original birth certificate still sealed in the Health Department in Hawaii
6. Affidavit of investigator Susan Daniels, brought to show that Barack Obama used multiple social security numbers of the deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
7. Affidavit of Retired Senior Deportation Officer of the Department of Home Land Security John Sampson
8. Affidavit of Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes- brought to the District Court hearing to show pattern of intimidation of Captain Rhodes
9. Affidavit of Robert D. Douglas, submitted to the district court and brought to show possible undue influence on Judge Land, aside of usual conflict of interest in a case involving the sitting US President
10. Appeals Brief in Rhodes v MacDonald
11. Selective Service verification, brought to show that Barack Hussein Obama is using social security number xxx-xx-4425, issued in CT to an individual born in 1890.
12 Republic of Kenya national assembly report of March 25th, Speech by Minster of Lands James Orengo (p31), submitted to the 11 th circuit court of Appeals as new evidence of Kenyan birth of Barack Obama, attested to by the high ranked official, Minister in the Government of Kenya.
13. Letter from Captain Crawford, ESQ, legal counsel to Admiral Mullin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brought to show that remedies within the military were exhausted.
Certificate of Service
Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:
Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee
Elena Kagan
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania ave, N.W.
Washington DC 20530-0001
Hugh Randolph aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O.Box 1702
Macon, GA 31202-1702
US Commission
on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C
Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0031 (70) 3268070 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Regional Office – Americas / Bureau régional – Amériques / Oficina regional – Américas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 001 (514) 289-8757 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590
Email: admin@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Laura Vericat Figarola
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es
Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª
08029 Barcelona, España
tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24
United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
Signed
/s/ Orly Taitz
Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ