Atty. Orly Taitz: Upcoming Actions on Six Obama Eligibility Cases

Print This Article


by Sharon Rondeau

Is Barack Hussein Obama constitutionally eligible to serve as president?

(Jan. 2, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has provided an update on six active cases, the first of which has a hearing on January 6 in Hawaii.  In Taitz v. Fuddy, Taitz has filed a Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement against Loretta Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which she has requested be heard in addition to the scheduled motion for “production of documents.”

The Reciprocal Subpoena motion is a request for Fuddy to comply with a subpoena issued to her by the state of Georgia in a case there.  Taitz reported that Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine wrote a letter to Taitz stating that her client, Fuddy, “will not comply with a a subpoena from Georgia,” which Taitz is attempting to enforce.

Taitz has requested to inspect the original birth record of Barack Hussein Obama as well as the original long-form birth certificate of a deceased infant born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, Virginia Sunahara, whose long-form birth certificate was not provided to the family and the short-form birth certificate, which was provided, contained a number which was suspiciously out of sequence.

The Georgia case is scheduled for trial on January 26, 2012.  Taitz represents a registered voter, David Farrar, and four presidential candidates in a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp and the Executive Committee of the Democrat Party of Georgia.  “There is one more presidential candidate who might join as well,” Taitz said.  “The case began as a ballot challenge by one person, and it was transferred to the Administrative Court of the state of Georgia.  It’s currently a legal action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction which would prevent Obama from being on the ballot in Georgia.”

Taitz reported that after David Farrar filed his challenge, the judge joined his case with two others cases, challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility.  One case is being brought by Atty. Mark Hatfield, who is also a Georgia State Representative; the other has been filed by Atty. Van Irion, who has also filed lawsuits against the DNC in three states on behalf of Liberty Legal Foundation.  Taitz stated that separation of the cases was requested by the other attorneys.  She said it was granted to one of them, and the other request is pending.

Taitz stated that she has raised the issues of the social security number Obama has been using as well as the alleged forgery of his long-form birth certificate, which, if proven to be crimes, would be compelling reasons to keep his name off of the ballot.  She explained that she included Minor v. Happersett as one of her arguments, but she is not relying solely on the dicta in Minor v. Happersett which stated that “there was no doubt” that a child born in the country to two U.S.-citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen.”  She described dicta as a statement made “in passing” by the court which does not address the essence of the case which was brought.  “It was not a holding; it was a dicta.  The case, filed by Virginia Minor, was a voting rights case in 1875.  In that case, the holding was that the Constitution does not specifically provide a right to vote, and later on, the right to vote became constitutionalized.  In this case, the court mentioned the fact that she was a U.S. citizen.  They stated that children of U.S. citizens born in the country are “native, natural born Citizens.”  The court said that there were “doubts” in regard to whether or not “others” belonged to this group.  It does not state anything about people born in the country with one citizen parent with the other parent not a citizen.”

Taitz continued:

After Minor, in 1898, there was a case called Wong Kim Ark regarding a young man who was born in this country, went with his family to China, came back, and was denied citizenship.  There, the judge stated that because he was born in the United States to parents who were residents and intending to reside in the country, he is considered a citizen and could be president one day.  So Wong Kim Ark said that a child of two residents who intend to live in the country can be considered a “natural born Citizen” and could be president.  Even though I do not agree with that interpretation, I’m concerned that the defense will bring this case, which had to do specifically with citizenship.  It was a holding.  Typically, holdings have more value than dicta because dicta is something that was just mentioned and not the essence of the case.  Minor was mentioned in Wong Kim Ark.  In case the judge rules that Minor was just a dicta and Wong Kim Ark was a holding, especially because Ark came later, he could come up with some type of compromise.  He might decide that “natural born Citizen” includes children of permanent residents; he might state that it includes children who have at least one citizen parent.  I don’t know what the court will decide, but I feel that a different point should be prepared for each and every eventuality.  If the judge decides that Minor was just a dicta and not a holding, or will decide that only one citizen parent is enough, then cases being brought by attorneys relying only on Minor would be dismissed.

My case states that there is an issue with Obama’s constitutional eligibility in light of the fact that only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen; the other wasn’t.  Also, there is an issue that there are no valid documents to prove that he was born in this country because his birth certificate is a forgery, and the social security number he obtained, based on the E-Verify, was never assigned to him.  It’s a two-pronged test:  citizenship of the parents, and his place of birth.

Sometimes people are born out of wedlock and the father’s name and citizenship status is not known.  Do you include them or not?  This specific issue was never decided.  I am concerned that the judge might decide that a person born in the country to one citizen parent is considered “natural born.”

If the judge were to decide only on based Minor, then it makes a lot of people complicit:  that all 535 members of Congress were complicit.  It would make a lot of judges complicit that they have not ruled properly for the last three years.  It’s hard for me to believe that the judge would do that.  He might take it into consideration, but I believe it will take more than just something that the court mentioned in Minor; it would also take a holding, that there was criminality, that the birth certificate and social security number were not valid, and the Congress and judges did not have that information until fairly recently.  In that situation, like Watergate, the new evidence of criminality would lead a judge to rule that Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot.  It would be easier to justify to the public.  People would feel uneasy if an elected President were thrown off the ballot on a technicality, on something mentioned in a case, that is 130 years ago, but it would be easier to justify to 310,000,000 people if there is evidence of crimes having been committed, this is something that anyone can understand and the public would feel is enough of a reason to remove him from the ballot.   I think most people would agree with that.

Taitz stated that she believes there has to be a holding issued directly on point in regard to the definition of “natural born Citizen” as it applies to the US Presidency, there has to be a holding, as to whose responsibility it is, to vet Constitutional and factual eligibility of candidates.  ”I believe that based on the writings of the Framers of the Constitution, their intent was to include children of citizens, not children of foreigners.  The court needs to come up with a holding directly on point in regards to this issue, in regards to children of one citizen parent, their eligibility for the U.S. Presidency.

In New Hampshire, Taitz has filed, an appeal with the state Supreme Court regarding its recent denial to hear a case brought against the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.  “Actions of the Ballot Law Commission were outside the norm of what is normally done by the agency,” she said.  She filed an application for stay which the court denied.  She stated that she “will be going further, either with a Motion for Reconsideration in New Hampshire or straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Taitz is planning to file a Motion for Rehearing en Banc in which she represents former Ambassador Alan Keyes, ten state representatives, and 30 members of the military.  The case was heard on May 2, 2011, by a three-judge panel, which issued a decision stating that presidential contenders have the right to challenge another candidate’s eligibility during the campaign period.

Two cases filed in Washington, DC are Taitz v. Astrue and Taitz v. Ruemmler, which are currently in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit, in which Taitz stated that she is waiting for the schedule which contains the docket of pleadings.

Regarding the costs and hours of work involved in the various cases on which she is working, Taitz said, “People don’t realize how much time it takes to prepare the filings and exhibits. The filing with the New Hampshire Supreme Court came to almost 300 pages. I had to prepare seven books for the New Hampshire Supreme Court which had to be printed, bound and mailed, and filing fees have to be paid.  People have no idea how much I’m spending.  Travel to New Hampshire and all of the other trips is very, very expensive.  I am spending hundreds of hours as well; it took me a full week to prepare the New Hampshire filing.  I had to spend $1,221 for my plane ticket to Honolulu.  I ask that people donate to this cause.”

© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National