Orly Taitz gets first SCOTUS conference hearing (+Videos)By James H. Hyde, Editor-in-Chief / Conservative Nexus
This story has been kicking around the web for a week, but I got this “Breaking News” email confirmation yesterday from Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.: “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts scheduled a case by attorney Orly Taitz dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s use of forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court. The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.”
In addition, according to TheObamaHustle.com blog, “[The] TRO request was filed pursuant to sworn affidavits of Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio, Investigator Mike Zullo, senior Deportation Officer with the department of Homeland Security John Sampson, Licensed investigator Susan Daniels, typesetting and Printing expert Paul Irey, Printing expert Douglas Vogt, Printing Expert Jonathan Poland, information Technology Expert Felicito Papa witness Linda Jordan and others attesting to the fact that Barack Obama’s short form birth certificate, long form birth certificate and Selective Service certificate represent computer generated forgeries and his social [sic] Security number is a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was issued in and around March 28, 1977 to an elderly resident of Connecticut born in 1890, who is presumed to be deceased, whose death was not reported to the SSA and whose number was unlawfully assumed by Barack (Barry) Soetero /Soebarkah/Obama in around 1980.”
Also, according to the ObamaHustle site, “Complaint also contains a sworn affidavit of an assistant clerk of the Registrar for the City of Hawaii [sic Honolulu] and county of Hawaii [sic], attesting to the fact that there is no birth certificate for Barack Obama in any hospital in Hawaii.”
Tim Adams, who served as an elections official for the city and county of Honolulu stated in 2008 that he searched the system and could not find a long-form hospital birth certificate for Obama in the Hawaiian archives (see video below).
The “missing” birth certificate has been a thorn in Obama’s side for a long time, but this admission in a sworn affidavit that no Obama birth certificate is in the Hawaiian archives is new and highly problematic.
Heretofore, Hawaii has always claimed the documents were there.
In fact, fed up with Birther claims and anxious to take this problem off Obama’s back, Governor Neil Abercrombie, when first elected, promised that he would go through the archives himself, find the long-form birth certificate from the hospital and prove the “Birthers” wrong. That was back in 2010-2011, and so far, Governor Abercrombie vaguely admits he can find only “notations” about Obama’s birth, but has not provided any documents to prove that any notation exists (see video below).
If there is no hospital birth certificate found in Hawaii’s archives, then the Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the White House website is fraudulent. It’s going to be hard for any court involved in this to rule against Taitz, and people will have to seriously consider whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, as one of his publisher’s printed in a promotional pamphlets and other materials clearly state he was.
Roberts, who may be feeling guilty about his Obamacare decision—as well he should—is still only giving Taitz a fifty-fifty chance. But that he is taking it to conference at all is significant. That could have consequences if the preponderance of her evidence checks out with the SCOTUS and in the lower courts as the case proceeds.
While all of the evidence listed above would make a conspiracy theorist drool, there’s some very curious additional evidence that appeared in Kerchner v Obama, a case filed on January 20, 2009, according to Scribd.com. The case was not filed by Taitz, but rather by Mario Apuzzo. A New Jersey-based federal district court claimed that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against Obama, an oft repeated ruling in cases challenging his eligibility.
Regardless, the evidence in question is troubling. After the 2008 conventions, the respective chairmen of the parties’ National Conventions had to file Certificates of Nomination forms with all the states. The forms certify who the candidates for president and vice president are and that they are eligible to be president according to the provisions of the Constitution. The GOP sent one form to all 50 states certifying eligibility, but Nancy Pelosi did not. She filed two separate forms, one to Hawaii, where Obama is alleged to have been born, and another to the other forty-nine states without the eligibility clause.
To Hawaii, the verbiage included the following on the form: “…the following were duly nominated candidates of said party respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: [Obama and Biden are named].” [Emphasis mine].
To the other forty-nine states, she deleted the “are legally qualified” line. She wrote. “…the following were duly nominated candidates of said party respectively: [Obama and Biden are named].”
Why the discrepancy? Scribd.com alludes to a possible answer: “Did Hawaii demand extra CYA protection from the DNC and Nancy Pelosi before they would put Obama on the ballot in Hawaii because people in Hawaii knew things about Obama the other 49 states did not know? It is the responsibility of the political parties to certify a candidate is eligible for the office they are running for. In Obama’s case, the DNC and Nancy Pelosi did not certify that Obama was eligible under the Constitution in 49 of the 50 states.”
This sets Pelosi up for possible fraud and conspiracy indictments herself because she had to have known that he was not eligible or else why did she send out two differing certifications, one with the assurance of constitutional eligibility and forty-nine without that assurance?
That aside, if you’re a Taitz fan or a Birther, don’t break out the bubbly just yet. It’s way too soon to celebrate Obama’s possible ouster for being ineligible to serve as president. It’s important to understand what a SCOTUS “conference” is. First, it is not a full hearing of an appeal of an adverse ruling handed down by a lower federal court at the conclusion of a civil trial. Heretofore, Dr. Taitz has been left at the SCOTUS alter at least five times. That means she’s petitioned for appeals and they’ve been flatly turned down each time. But acceptance for conference truly is what makes this different.
It’s in conference that the Supreme Court reviews the merits of an appeal, and if four of the justices vote to hear it, the appeal is scheduled for oral arguments. The vast majority of such appeals fail to get the four votes. Second, Taitz is not appealing a ruling against the plaintiffs she represents after going through a complete civil trial. She is appealing the California federal court’s ruling against her request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the certification of the 2012 vote by Congress.
The lower court first denied Dr. Taitz a TRO to keep the California vote uncertified. She filed an appeal of that denial to SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he rejected it. Her appeal here involves the denial of a TRO to keep Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote, and this time she filed with Chief Justice John Roberts, who agreed to have what she provides considered in conference to see if the SCOTUS will hear her appeal. In the mean time, the lower court case alleging Obama to be ineligible will proceed. So this is not a situation where Taitz lost the case and is seeking to appeal the decision. This involves but one part of that case.
Taitz, known to the left in the pejorative as the “Birther queen,” has compiled an impressive list of evidence, including an Indonesian school enrollment document, photographed by Tatan Syuflana of the Associated Press (which can be downloaded here). It lists Obama’s name as Barry Soetero, which we know was his name when he was living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, Lolo Soetero, who is alleged to have adopted him. That would make Barry Soetero his legal name. If he did not go to court to have his name changed back to Barack Hussein Obama, then using that name is fraudulent. The document in question clearly indicates Soetero’s citizenship as “Indonesian” and his religion as “Muslim.” If that’s the case, did he renounce his U.S. citizenship when his mother moved to Indonesia and then fail to get it reinstated before running for president?
That’s what Donald Trump wants to know and why he wants to see Obama’s college records, because they would indicate if he was a foreign exchange student (as a citizen of Indonesia). But not even a Trump offer of $5 million to Obama’s favorite charity would compel Obama to even consider unsealing those documents.
That’s because it’s estimated that he’s paid lawyers $2 million plus to keep them and other records that indicate his true legal name and citizenship in ultra dark places.
Questions about the status of his citizenship are legion, but that even the AP gives a modicum of credence to his being a citizen of Indonesia is troubling. And it may well be backed up by the illegal Social Security number he’s allegedly using.
In the YouTube Video below, it’s explained that the Social Security number Taitz alleges Obama is using does comes up with his name, but denies him the ability to work because it was not a Social Security number actually assigned to him.
Needless to say, for Dr. Taitz, this is a huge deal; a fait accompli after tilting at windmills since 2009. I’ve been following her and her efforts to have Obama escorted from the Oval Office since she began her quest when she first claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and that he has forged and in other ways misrepresented the truth about his identity and citizenship. If any of her allegations are proven true and the SCOTUS agrees, it would cost him his incumbency and he’d be slapped with numerous fraud indictments.
Taitz’s problem has been getting a federal court (or any court) to take her and her evidence seriously.
Even if she prevails here and gets her TRO, the conference is not scheduled until February 15, 2013, well after Obama’s second inauguration, and if the court grants certiorari (permission to bring her appeal before the SCOTUS), she will be heard, but only about the TRO. To get the court to grant certiorari to decide on Obama’s eligibility is different, although if the high court grants her TRO after reviewing the evidence she’s presented for her current appeal, it is a de facto confirmation by the high court that what she contends and the proof she provides is true, relevant and compelling.
If it should later be proven that Obama is ineligible to be president, it leaves the court with the unenviable task of trying to untangle a mess nothing less than a horrendously snarled fishing reel.
That’s where the “ifs” begin. If Obama is proven ineligible, does that mean that Biden becomes president?
Most likely yes. The Constitution does provide that if the man or woman elected president is deemed unable to serve between the election and the inauguration and beyond, the vice president can take his or her place until he is able to serve. But some may argue that if the top of the ticket was a fraud, the whole ticket is irreversibly stained, and therein lies the rub. Does Romney win by default? Not likely.
But the burdens the country and the courts will face will be arduous. Everyone Obama nominated to the Supreme Court, his Cabinet and all in the Executive Branch subject to Senate consent will lose their jobs. If he was never legally president, then he could not legally nominate them for their positions, even though they were approved by the Senate. They would most likely have to be renominated and the Senate would have to approve of each (or not) again under it’s advice and consent mandate.
Everything ordered or signed by Obama has no force or effect. All legislation signed into law by him may have to go through the legislative process again or be signed by Biden if he is president. All of Obama’s executive orders would be without effect. All regulations written by, say, the EPA, HHS and other Executive Branch agencies and departments would have to be rescinded because those who are Senate approved are not legally in office.
That makes it abundantly clear why the federal courts have turned a deaf eye to all prior attempt to prove Obama ineligible. It would cause a very gnarly constitutional crisis that would impact our economy,
credibility, global status and make us look like a nation of fools, far too trusting of what those involved in this told us. Obviously, it would create complete mayhem in the Executive Branch and a serious hiccup in foreign policy. In fact, we’d be vulnerable to attacks possibly verbal and military.
Given all of the evidence, even without Pelosi’s mysterious certifications not on Taitz’s evidence list, maybe this time, Orly Taitz will break through to the other side, and if she winds up winning, Obama could well be shown the door. But again, the courts seem loathe to be responsible for a constitutional crisis that will shake this nation to its core for decades to come.
SCOTUS’s agreement to consider her TRO in conference is a small victory for now. Regardless, if Obama is ultimately found ineligible and a constitutional crises ensues, we cannot have an impostor in the White House, so the courts had best weigh the evidence clearly and fairly and truthfully. We’ll recover from a major crisis like this just as we did from Watergate and the like of the Teapot Dome Scandal. It’s just another mess in American politics and we will rise above it.
For more information about how Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president, see The Biggest Coverup in U.S. History.