BRIEF FILED IN D.C. COURT BEFORE JUDGE LAMBERTH SEEKS RESPONSE IN 12 DAYS
by John Charlton

Attorney Orly Taitz, being interviewed outside of the Santa Ana Court House last fall.
(Feb. 14, 2010) — Whatever you think about Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., if but a shred of objectivity remains in your mind, you have to admit that to rebut a complaint made to the California Bar Association for her conduct in the case of Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., US. Army, before Judge Clay D. Land, of the U.S. Federal Court in Columbus, Goergia — in which case Land sanctioned her $20,000 — that Attorney Taitz has every right to seek the original records of Barack Hussein Obama to prove her own claims that her spirited defense of Rhodes and of her own reputation before Land was not disrespectful, but an exercise of free speech and in the cause of justice and right.
That’s just fair.
And that’s exactly what Dr. Taitz is now attempting in D. C. Court, before Judge Royce Lamberth, in her quo warranto action, Dr. Orly Taitz vs. Barack Hussein Obama.
You can read Taitz’s entire Application for Preliminary Injunction through this link, in PDF format.
In my own words, her more prominent arguments would read thus:
1) It only costs Obama $12 and a signed permission form to release an official copy of his original Birth Certificate, whereas, without such a document, I, Orly Taitz, risk losing my bar license, on the grounds that Land allegedly sanctioned me justly for defending Captain Connie Rhodes’ and my own reputation before his court.
2) It represents a conflict of interest, not only in my present case, but in the case of Obama’s future prosecution, if the U.S. Attorney General’s Office is allowed to represent him in my case; therefore, I request the AGs recusal.
3) Numerous individuals have been harassed, persecuted, and had their livelihood damaged by Obama supporters for demanding the verification of Obama’s birth-story/citizenship claims.
4) I have been publicly threatened with death and being murdered for exercising my free speech rights in this regard.
5) My car was sabotaged in such a way as to cause, with high probability, my death by incineration.
6) I must defend myself against Land’s $20,000 sanction, before the Appellate Court in Georgia.
7) I therefore respectfully request a certified copy of Obama’s long form Birth Certificate, medical records showing actual birth, and school records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, and that my case be heard before Feb. 26th, on an expedited schedule.
It does not need to be said that if Taitz should prevail to obtain document disclosure in the next two weeks, it would be the ironic denouement of her 17-month crusade for transparency in the matter of the question of Obama’s eligibility for office.
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Possibly Related Posts:






Dr. Taitz files reply to DOJ’s motion for dismissal, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=8667
The State Bar of California needs to
1) file a lawsuit against a person who by all evidence present is an ILLEGAL. he can at any time show his proof; he has not; so it is assumed he is an illegal.
2) They need to file lawsuits against those who would restrain an attorney’s free speech as well as her client and 1st amendment right to redress!Orly is the HERO here! People including the state bar of California better do a wake up.
DOJ files to dismiss, standing and jurisdiction http://www.scribd.com/doc/27540929/Doc-10-0-Taitz-v-Obama-DCDC-1-10-cv-00151-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
I need your help. I need to raise at least $2,600 filing fee before March 11th to put my name on the ballot as a Republican candidate for the Secretary of state of CA: Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
maybe today the court will at least finally docket Orly’s latest filing — Movant intervener Chris Strunk’s latest consolidation motion to transfer the friendly suit “ACORN v US” (USDC-NYED 09-4888 Gershon — aka “no Bill of Attainder”) down to USDC-DC in “Taitz v Obama” USDC-DC 10-151 Lamberth as well as CE Strunk’s other FOIA/Quo Warranto case USDC-DC 08-2234.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27031382/Multi-District-Quo-Warranto-Matter-in-re-Strunk-Consolidated-Reply-Declaration-in-ACORN-v-USA-EDNY-08-Cv-4888
The construction of her Claim does indeed approach and possibly encompass the standing requirement of an ‘interested person’ being made ‘peculiar’ by the circumstance of the ’0′ holding the Office.
Orly, please, focus, focus, focus. Dual-Citizen.
GO ORLY! Bless her heart, she never gives up :)