A TAITZ-PLAINTIFF SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
A Guest editorial by Captain Neil Turner
Q: WHAT DO BARACK OBAMA (BO) and ORLY TAITZ (OT) HAVE IN COMMON?
A: They’re both ‘BIRTHERS’!
Both ‘BIRTHERS’, you say? Yes, I do.
- BIRTHERS seek TRANSPARENCY! (BO promises it. OT promises to expose it.)
- TRANSPARENCY seeks DISCOVERY of the TRUTH! (BO promises the Truth. OT promises to discover the Truth.)
- DISCOVERY of the Truth seeks compliance with The LAW of the LAND: The U.S. CONSTITUTION!
o BO is sworn to uphold it, and everything BO does is ‘under the Authority granted’ to him by it;
o OT is sworn to uphold it, and everything OT does is to see that its Authority remains as the Supreme Law of the Land.
BIRTHERS > TRANSPARENCY > DISCOVERY > The CONSTITUTION
As a plaintiff in two of Dr. Orly Taitz ‘pro bono’ lawsuits concerning the obvious violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (President must be ‘Natural-Born’: i.e. the child of 2 U.S. Citizen parents at birth), I had the opportunity to speak with her at length on Saturday, September 19, 2009.
Some of the issues we discussed may answer some questions many of you may have:
1. Why were Larry Sinclair (Book: Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair – Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?) and Lucas Smith (Certified COPY of Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate) invited to appear as Witnesses at the Sept. 8thhearing in Judge Carter’s court in Santa Ana, CA (BARNETT v OBAMA)?
Both were invited to appear as witnesses due to concerns by Orly that evidence (and witnesses) were in danger of being ‘scrubbed’ before their evidence could be heard. Orly stated that she felt there was a chance that Judge Carter might have agreed to some limited introduction of evidence and that she needed to be prepared in case that happened. (Judge Carter did not accept the argument, so he did not allow any witnesses to speak).
- Sinclair backed out that morning, claiming that a personal situation required him to return home immediately. Orly did not ask him to lie on the stand, and there was nothing she asked of him other than what he had already stated publicly many times previously. His purported Affidavit that Orly asked him to lie has not been received by the court, and has not been entered into the record. (It would not be a proper way to do this, in any case).
- Lucas Smith’s travel (from the Dominican Republic), meals and lodging were paid for (written contract), but further requests by him for more money and holding costs until the January trial date were rejected (properly) by Orly. Any remuneration for his testimony would have been totally improper. Orly did not ask him to lie on the stand; only to state what he had publicly stated many times previously.
Orly said that she does not understand why Sinclair and Smith have stated these things, thereby damaging the very cause they profess to support, but she seemed to be more disappointed than concerned about their bizarre actions.
2. What about Captain Connie Rhodes (Flight Surgeon who wanted to ascertain that her orders overseas were from a Constitutionally eligible Commander in Chief) stating that she was going to file a complaint against Orly for filing a Motion to Stay her Deployment?
ANSWER: Orly has a Consent Form signed by Capt. Rhodes directing Orly to do whatever she felt necessary and appropriate as counsel, as well as a blanket representation agreement. If Orly did not automatically file the Motion to Stay her Deployment with the Court, she could be found to be derelict in her duties as counsel. Capt. Rhodes was probably subjected to intense military pressure to ‘preserve good order and discipline’, so she ‘caved’ – and has since accepted her orders to deploy overseas.
I listened to ‘The Awakening’ with Hanen & Arlen on BolgTalkRadio several times over the last week, and have heard Arlen Williams making charges of Orly being a ‘saboteur’ in this battle to ascertain whether or not the President and Commander in Chief is Constitutionally eligible. To attack the hardest working and most dedicated person in this fight to unearth the Fraud of the Centuries is disgusting and reprehensible. Our ‘Lady Liberty’ has accomplished more than all the other ‘leaders’ in this fight combined, from exposing the Supreme Court’s complicity in this act of Treason to having her case now before a judge who has actually scheduled a Trial Date for the hearing of evidence on this monumental crime. Who, then, is the saboteur here?
Ask not why our government demands compliance and conformity to the corrupted ‘Rules and Procedures’ of our corrupted Courts, but instead ask what you can do to restore our Constitutional Republic to the principles upon which it was founded, and to restore our Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land.
Neil B. Turner
Mr. Turner is a plaintiff in Barnett vs. Obama. If anyone mentioned as a defendant in a case brought by Attorney Taitz wishes access to The Post & Email editorial page, we will gladly offer them the same opportunity, as we have done to Captain Turner. The Post & Email has published this unsollicited letter as an Editorial, simply because it is such, not because we have taken any position regarding the claims it makes. It is published here with the permission of its author.