If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
“I HAVE NEW EVIDENCE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Aug. 15, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has filed a motion for reconsideration in the eligibility case wherein former Ambassador Alan Keyes was one of 41 plaintiffs challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to serve as president. The remaining plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama comprised ten state representatives and 30 military members.
The case was filed on January 20, 2009, just prior to Obama’s inauguration, and originally assigned to Judge David O. Carter. It had first appeared that Carter was enthusiastic to decide in his court whether or not Obama qualified as a “natural born Citizen. However, after an apparent change of heart or mind, on October 29, 2009, the case was closed after Carter said his court did not have jurisdiction.
Keyes had run for president in 2008 as an America’s Independent Party candidate and is a prolific writer and former radio show host. He served as ambassador to the United Nations during President Ronald Reagan’s first term. He also ran for the U.S. Senate from Illinois after Jack Ryan was disgraced by the procuring of Ryan’s sealed divorce records achieved by the Obama campaign with the assistance of The Chicago Tribune.
Taitz appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who argued that Obama had abused his authority by using attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice paid for with taxpayer dollars to defend him. A law clerk from Obama’s campaign law firm, Perkins Coie, went to work for Judge Carter shortly before Carter issued his final disposition of the suit.
The appeal was argued in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2, 2011. The panel’s decision, issued many months later, stated that a presidential candidate could file a challenge to Obama or any other presidential candidate “during the campaign period.”
Taitz said that Rule 60 allows for the refiling of a case if there is “new information.” “I have new evidence: we have one of the most respected sheriffs in the country saying that the birth certificate and Selective Service form are forgeries. I also provided the court with a DVD with sworn videotaped testimony from the trial with all of the experts. I am filing the motion for reconsideration on behalf of only one of the plaintiffs, Alan Keyes, and on one cause of action, which is RICO, which is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This will be heard on September 10 at 8:30 a.m.” The hearing will be held in Santa Ana, CA.
Taitz said that she provided the RICO argument to Mississippi, where she has an open challenge to Obama, and to California on a different case.
It is Taitz’s belief that she “has a very strong case” with Alan Keyes as the plaintiff. “The corruption in the courts has kept us from winning this case,” she said. “Obama ran for Senate against Obama in Illiniois. Keyes was runner-up, so he has perfect standing. You cannot find a person with more standing. If not for the fraudulently-obtained documents and the forgery on Obama’s part, Keyes would have been a U.S. Senator, and his damages are not amorphous, that cannot be ascertained; they are the loss of the Senate seat and all of the benefits,” Taitz said. “It’s not just his Social Security number Now, we have confirmation from Arpaio that his Selective Service certificate ias forged as well. You can’t hold any federal office as a man unless you have registered with Selective Service. There is no valid birth certificate; there is no valid Social Security card or Selective Service card. The man is a foreign national with all fraudulent and forged documents. Keyes has very strong standing and cannot be denied, so I am bringing the action in regard to what happened back in 2004: Obama winning a position in the Senate using forged documents.
“The case was filed when Obama was elected, but now, we have a window of opportunity because he is not only the president; he is also a candidate on the ballot. So I have perfect timing, perfect standing; I have new evidence from Sheriff Arpaio. There is absolutely no reason for Judge Carter not to grant me the motion for reconsideration, and I’m asking for the legal force to file a Second Amended Complaint on racketeering charges against Obama; Pelosi; and Brian Schatz, who was the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii at the time and who falsified the certificate of nomination.”
The Keyes case is one of three cases which Taitz has pending in California. Another lawsuit, Taitz v. Sebelius, who is Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, challenges that the health care bill, upheld in part by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, violates the freedom of religion establishment clause of the First Amendment and was signed by someone ineligible to do so. Taitz had originally asked for an emergency hearing in August on that case, but the magistrate did not allow expedited hearings. Therefore, it is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on September 14 in Los Angeles, CA.
In Indiana, the judge assigned the writing of the Proposed Order to Taitz after ruling in her favor on three of four issues on . She has submitted it, and as of this writing, has two days and the other side has 23 days to respond.
Taitz is considering filing a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to expedite her Mississippi case. “They’re now using a strategy of just delaying the case. Before, they tried to stop me with sanctions or obstructing, but now they’re delaying, and the judge is just sitting on it, and the case could go on until January. The state court judge delayed until after the primary election, and the case was not heard during the primary. Now the federal judge is delaying and trying to delay it until after the general election, so I’m attempting to expedite that case,” Taitz said.
Assuming Obama is certified as the nominee for the Democrat Party, she plans to refile the fourth count of the Indiana challenge.
Editor’s Note: Atty. Taitz chose to speak with The Post & Email on the development in her Keyes v. Obama lawsuit prior to any other media outlet.