Atty. Orly Taitz Updates The Post & Email on her Indiana Case

“THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 25, 2012) — On July 23, 2012, Atty. Orly Taitz filed an Ex Relator Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with a Reply to Opposition in Indiana which will be heard on August 8 at 10:00 a.m. at the Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Judge S.K. Reid presiding.

The filing is based on Indiana statute 3-5-7-4, which states:

IC 3-5-7-4
Candidate’s legal name
Sec. 4. (a) For purposes of placement of a candidate’s name on the ballot, a candidate’s legal name is determined under this section.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a candidate’s legal name is considered to be the name shown on the candidate’s birth certificate.
(c) If a candidate:
(1) uses a name after marriage as described in subsection (d); or
(2) takes a name through a judicial proceeding that is different from the name shown on the candidate’s birth certificate;
the most recent name used after marriage or taken in the judicial proceeding is considered to be the candidate’s legal name.
(d) A name a candidate uses after marriage is considered the candidate’s legal name if the name satisfies any of the following:
(1) The name is the name appearing on the candidate’s birth certificate.
(2) The name is the name used by the candidate as an applicant for the marriage license.
(3) The name is any combination of the names the candidate and the candidate’s spouse used as applicants for their marriage license.

Taitz told The Post & Email that the Democrat presidential candidate’s name appears as “Barack Obama” on his paperwork filed with the state, but his long-form birth certificate shows it as “Barack Hussein Obama II.”

“This has not been done before,” Taitz said. “‘Ex relator’ is a status that could be given to individuals who are standing in the shoes of governmental officials.  In this case, I’m asking that the government give me ex relator status to stand in the shoes of the attorney general of Indiana.  I am asking the judge presiding over the case to de-certify all votes for Obama from the primary election due to a violation of Indiana statute.”

Included with Taitz’s petition are eight exhibits, including a report by typesetting expert Douglas Vogt, who analyzed the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011 and declared it a forgery; an affidavit from private investigator Susan Daniels, who has herself filed an eligibility challenge against Obama in her home state of Ohio based on her contention that he is using a fraudulent social security number; and a sworn affidavit from Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who at a recent press conference on July 17 stated that Obama’s long-form birth certificate is “definitely fraudulent.”

“Indiana is the only state where a candidate’s name must agree with what is on the birth certificate.  One of my co-plaintiffs, a gentleman by the name of Bob. Kern, was actually sued because when he ran for office, his name on the ballot was not as it appeared on his birth certificate.  At the time, about 20 years ago, the statute requiring them to match did not exist.   After the lawsuit against Bob Kern, the Indiana legislature passed the law which asked individuals exactly as it is on their birth certificate.”

Taitz told us that Kern is a Democrat and has “strong standing.”  “He ran for Congress and won a Democrat Party primary but was sued because he had changed his name,” Taitz said. Kern filed an elections fraud complaint against Obama for using a name which varied from that which appears on his alleged birth certificate, which Taitz declared was “ignored” by the Indiana Elections Commission and Secretary of State, even though Kern had been sued over it.

“Now Obama cannot be on the ballot in the state of Indiana because on his birth certificate, his name is ‘Barack Hussein Obama II,’ and he put on the ballot only ‘Barack Obama.’  So all of the votes for him must be de-certified.  This is the basis for my Petition for Writ of Mandamus, in which I say that the government did not fulfill its duties; neither did the Secretary of State, the Elections Commission or the Attorney General.  Not only that, but Deputy Attorney General Jefferson Garn did not bring proper petition for writ of mandamus with the court, but he actually attempted to intimidate me and other plaintiffs with a bogus petition for sanctions, even though there was no reason to sanction us.

On July 21, Indiana Attorney General Gregory Zoeller’s office responded to Taitz’s “Rule 60 motion” by dismissing the case and denying Taitz’s charges of fraud and treason.  However, the decision included the statement:  “Respondents are willing to stipulate that her other claims (breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and fraud) that were never before the Court are not dismissed with prejudice, but reserve all defenses, including those related to the statute of limitations.”

“The same deputy attorney general, who happens to be an Obama supporter, actually brought charges against former Secretary of State Charlie White, who was lawfully elected, was thrown out of office and criminally convicted for not updating his address on his voter registration card.  Mr. White was divorced, and he moved out of the house.  It’s interesting that even though he was divorced, moved out of the house, but his ex-wife testified on his behalf.  She said, ‘We got divorced, but all the mail that was going to my ex-husband was forwarded to him.  He was coming to the house every week to spend time with our son.  So he was actually partially living there, even though we were divorced.”

However, White was convicted of voter fraud for failing to update his address.  Taitz said that she has been in touch with White, who was prepared to testify in a previous hearing in Indiana.  However, Taitz reported that the judge did not allow White to testify.  “I had several witnesses, including the former Secretary of State, and the judge wouldn’t let them testify.”

“It was supposed to be a hearing on all motions.  There was a motion on the part of the defendants and there was my motion for an emergency hearing. I had three witnesses:  one from New York, one from Georgia, and Mr. White.  I paid several thousand dollars for airfare, transportation and hotel rooms for the witnesses, but the judge would not let us argue our motions; she gave preference to the state,” said Taitz.

Taitz stated that “the same thing happened” a week ago in California where two expert witnesses were prepared to testify at a hearing.  “It’s just unbelievable what the judges are doing,” she said.

“In my case, Judge Glenda Sanders was afraid to make a decision because it’s such a sensitive issue.  We had one hearing with her; and I filed an ex parte motion.  I brought all of the precedents and evidence in my favor, and she said I didn’t serve the defendants well enough.  So I served the defendants by mail, by email – in each and every way possible.  At the second hearing, she stated that she was busy and another judge should hear it.  She then said, ‘Oh, come on, how long has this whole thing been going on?’ and I said, ‘Your Honor, it was never heard on the merits.’  She then said, ‘You’re not answering my question.  I asked you, “How long has this Obama eligibility thing been going on?”  Answer my question and don’t say anything else.’  So I said, ‘Four years.’  She said, ‘Oh, come on; it’s been going on for four years; why are you bringing it?’  So she was biased from the beginning.  I worked very hard and had witnesses.  I had a video presentation; I had my paralegal there with a camera, with a computer and a projector, ready to provide all of the evidence, but she just completely ignored everything.”

On July 23, Taitz was a guest on the “Lenny” Komarovsky radio show, on which she discussed judicial corruption in the United States.  “I was telling them that this is just like the Soviet Union.  We don’t have an independent judiciary; we have only corrupt puppets.  /they are just following marching orders from the establishment, whether it be the president, the U.S. Attorney General, or the attorney general of each state.”

Taitz speculated that bribery, intimidation, and threats could be the reason that no judge has taken action on an eligibility case against Obama.  “Their children might be threatened; the judges might be told that they’re going to go through the tax returns of their son or daughter.  They’ve been harassing the law bar; they were trying to take away my dental and law licenses.”  While Taitz said that “they were not successful” in those efforts, they “cost her a lot of time and money.”

Taitz said that she and others continue to be harassed after bringing evidence of criminality to the courts.  “We now have a situation where a Chicago mob is running the country,” she said.  “We have no rule of law; we have mob rule.  It’s so flagrant, like the forger drawing a happy face in the word ‘Onaka’ and saying, ‘Here you go.'”

———————-

Editor’s Note:  Some have argued that Indiana has “some of the toughest ballot-access laws in the nation.”