If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Atty. Orly Taitz has used a Georgia subpoena to compel the Hawaii Department of Health to reveal Obama's original birth certificate, which to date it has refused to do

(Jan. 18, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz, who represents a registered voter and four presidential candidates in a challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to have his name placed on the Georgia ballot for the election of 2012, has told The Post & Email that Obama’s attorney has filed a Motion to Quash which states that “The subpoenas serve no permissible function.”

At issue is whether or not Obama qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” as stipulated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  Obama has claimed a birth in Hawaii, but no hospital there will confirm it.  The question of whether or not a person born to a non-U.S. citizen father can be “natural born” has not been answered by any court in the country over the last three and one-half years.  Several attorneys have stated that in order to qualify, a person must be born in the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.  Obama’s campaign website states that he is a “native citizen of the United States,” and another source indicates that being born in the country is enough to meet that part of the eligibility requirement.

Taitz has also stated that Obama is using a social security number which was not assigned to him and does not pass the E-Verify system maintained by the federal government to help employers identify illegal aliens.

Taitz had used a subpoena from the Georgia court to obtain the production of Obama’s original birth certificate purportedly held at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.  That case, Taitz v. Fuddy, is still open.  While she stated that she believes there is a Hawaii statute which compels recognition of an out-of-state subpoena, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, contended that an administrative subpoena issued from Georgia “has no effect” outside of the state.

Various professionals in computer graphics, scanning, and Adobe Illustrator have stated unequivocally that the long-form birth certificate which the White House released on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.  Several state representatives from New Hampshire have agreed.  To the knowledge of The Post & Email, only one expert, Jean-Claude Tremblay, stated that the document could be authentic, but a subsequent article by WorldNetDaily reported that “none of his [Tremblay’s] comments would permit the conclusion that the Obama birth certificate is an authentic document.”

An unknown number of American citizens have asked the FBI to investigate the questions about Obama’s background.

Jablonski also stated in his Motion that Taitz is seeking documentation proving Obama’s citizenship to “further her political agenda.”

Taitz reported:

Obama’s attorney filed a Motion to Quash the subpoenas, and it’s interesting because he wants to quash all of the subpoenas.  He doesn’t have any reason to quash the others.  He’s not presenting anything that would show that any of the other subpoenas are in any way invalid or irrelevant.

I was really maligned and attacked by some of the Obama operatives who have claimed to be on our side who wrote horrible articles that I was lying.  In reality, the subpoenas are valid.  In reality, if the subpoenas were not valid, then Barack Obama, the presumed president of the United States, would not be filing a Motion to Quash.

It places him in a very bad light, because he released what he claims to be a valid birth certificate which he has put on mugs and T-shirts.  So why is he quashing the subpoena to get the original?  If there’s nothing to hide and it’s not a forgery, then why not show the original document?  Clearly, he is nervous; he’s worried.  he knows that what he showed is just a cheap forgery and that he and many others will end up in prison.

I expected his attorney to file a Motion to Quash, but not for all of the subpoenas I filed.

It’s interesting because in his motion, he’s attacking me personally, saying “It’s a political vendetta.”  It’s 7 or 8 pages.  On the subpoena, he is attacking me, bringing up unrelated cases.  And the point is, when you file a Motion to Quash the subpoena, there are specific guidelines:  whether or not the subpoena is relevant, oppressive or redundant.  He was supposed to provide specific reasons: what is improper or oppressive or redundant, but he didn’t.  He just attacked me personally.

I posted what I filed in Hawaii, and it was released on video a day or two ago.

I need to file an Opposition.  It is my case, and I am free to bring my witnesses without subpoenas.  I provided a list of witnesses, but he does not provide anything that would state why they are improper.

The attorney said, “His documents are widely available on the internet.”  But that’s why there is authentication of documents:  to make sure that what is posted is valid.

He wrote that Obama is “extremely busy.”  Well, he wasn’t busy a couple of weeks ago taking a 17-day vacation to Hawaii, costing taxpayers $4,000,000.  Is he too busy to spend maybe an hour during a hearing which would authenticate all of his records?  If the records are authentic and there is no fraud or forgery, then it is res judicata.  If there is fraud and forgery, then he cannot be on the ballot in Georgia or anywhere else in the country, and Congress will need to start impeachment proceedings.

The Post & Email asked, “What is the next step?  Does all of this go to the judge on the 26th?” and Taitz answered, “The judge will probably decide before the 26th.  It’s going to go very fast, because he filed his Motion to Quash the subpoenas just now, and the hearing is in a week.”

Taitz stated that she is paying for the transportation and expenses of the witnesses who will be traveling to Atlanta for the hearing and is in great need of donations.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Stanley Anne Dunham, alleged Obama mother, was born November 29, 1942. As her birth state Kansas has a school attendance cutoff date of August 31 she is high school Class of 1961. The claimed Obama birthdate August 8, 1961 has a conception time in November 1960. However, Stanley Anne was in a Washington state high school during November 1960. Thus any Obama document with August 8, 1961 as birthdate is a phoney.

    Apparently Obama operatives have grabbed the identity of a Hawaii citizen. That is Identity Theft on a Grand Scale.

  2. From the opening lines of Jablonski’s Motion To Quash:

    “President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for re-
    election, moves for an order quashing a subpoena which, if enforced, requires him to
    interrupt duties as President of the United States for an administrative hearing in
    Fulton County, Georgia, starting on January 26 and continuing through the pendency of the hearing. Such a subpoena is, on its face, unreasonable.”

    Now, Mr. Jablonski, you know as well as every other person paying attention to this case, that all President Obama has to do is to provide an valid, palpable, examinable
    CERTIFIED PAPER COPY of his birth certificate and, to the delight and joy of Obama
    supporters, the case will be dismissed.

    Is this not your aim?

    The longer your team delays the inevitable, attempts to circumvent the law with sophistry, delivers ad hominem attacks against your opposition, and like a Puer Aeternus continues to play with digital smoke and mirrors, the more you evidence that you do not have the evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puer_aeternus

    Let’s all be frank, shall we? This matter is not losing traction. It’s gaining it.

    Next time you chat with your client, remind him that, by his own admission, in high school, he found his birth certificate sequestered amongst important papers. If he doesn’t want to pester Hawaii yet again, he can always tote along the original – half-a century aged by now – when he flies to GA next week.

    Why, think how much that document would be worth at auction! Enough to pay your legal fees many times over, yes?

  3. It’s funny how the lawyer for Obama says his schedule can’t be interrupted to show a long-form birth certificate, yet at the same time this motion to quash was being put together, Obama was “busy” putting together a video to wish Betty White a happy 90th birthday and demand that she show him her long-form birth certificate. Is this what Obama is too busy doing?? Or does he have too much campaigning and fundraising to do??

  4. How odd that Obama would fight a standard administrative procedure in verifying his alleged eligibility to be on the ballot in Georgia. Also, doesn’t his attorney understand that a birth certificate is considered self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence?? Of course, this means that a physical copy of the alleged document has to actually be entered into the court, not a jpg or a layered PDF that was posted on a website. Is Obama unable to prove he is Constitutionally eligible for office?? Is that why he’s having his counsel compose a lengthy motion to quash, along with its personal attack on the attorney requesting very routine and standard forms of proof??

  5. ” . . . until the documents being sought are produced for the court?”

    There are no documents to produce. My FOIA/ORR to the SOS only returned irrelevant memos; but nothing pertaining to Obama’s qualifications. This is fraud on the part of the DNC for listing an unqualified candidate for placement on the ballot and false swearing on the part of the SOS for actually issuing the ballot with Obama listed. In Georgia the SOS is required to verify the constitutional qualifications of the candidate.

  6. Check Georgia’s Election law, it is pretty clear. If you are a federal candidate and your name is submitted for the Office of the President (A FEDERAL office) the SOS can challenge you on your claims. No documents means he cannot be vetted or certified by the SOS or Elections officers.

    I’d say his name is off until he produces the documents or the GA SOS takes personal responsibility for the placement of a usurper on the ballot.

    That’s a lot of skin in the game for the SOS.

  7. Given that the Georgia subpoenas will not be honored, might Georgia deny Obama to be on the ballot until the documents being sought are produced for the court?

    1. If Hawaii does not honor Georgia subpoenas per the “Full Faith and Credit Act”, then in all fairness Georgia should not honor Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate and deny him inclusion on the ballot.