If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
CASE TO BE HEARD ON JANUARY 26 IN ATLANTA
by Sharon Rondeau
(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.”
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.