“HOW CAN THERE BE AN OPPOSITION WITH NO MOTION?”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Aug. 8, 2012) — In an exclusive interview with Atty. Orly Taitz just minutes ago, The Post & Email learned that Taitz’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus was allegedly “not received” by the Indiana court where a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning at 10:00 a.m.
However, Taitz has a certified mail receipt from the court showing that it was received, and her legal assistant has emailed it to her since Taitz’s discovery several hours ago. “I have the proof,” Taitz said.
Taitz said that while her motion was reported to be missing, the Opposition brief from a Deputy Attorney General of Indiana “was right there.” She asked, “How can there be an opposition with no motion? There was also a motion from somebody who wanted to be an intervenor, and that is not there. There are a lot of problems,” Taitz told us.
Taitz did not receive a copy of the deputy attorney general’s opposition brief as normal protocol would dictate. “I had to run to the office of the attorney general at the last minute. I asked somebody to let me in the building, and I talked to a clerk, and I was finally able to get a copy of it. You can see what is going on: they’re pulling out all the stops to keep me from doing anything.”
She said she “didn’t know” if the judge would have a chance to read her motion before tomorrow morning’s hearing.
As the telephone call concluded, Taitz was writing a response to the Indiana deputy attorney general opposition. “Things are constantly disappearing,” she said.
Taitz’s challenge to Obama’s name on the Indiana ballot arises from a statute which requires a candidate to file papers using the name appearing on the candidate’s birth certificate. Taitz had told us previously that Obama filed in Indiana as “Barack Obama” when his long-form birth certificate, although labeled fraudulent by several experts and a team of investigators, bears the name “Barack Hussein Obama II.”