If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
WHY IS INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA’S QUESTIONABLE DOCUMENTATION NO ONE’S RESPONSIBILITY?
(Oct. 7, 2012) —[Editor’s Note: Additional recent developments on the part of Secretaries of State named as defendants in Taitz’s case Judd v. Obama were reported on October 5. An attorney representing members of the media listed as defendants IN the case also responded to Taitz late last week.]
I got a call from Atty. Dorian Brell, the deputy attorney general of West Virginia representing Secretary of State Natalie Tennant. Keith Judd ran for office in West Virginia and got 41% of the vote. He filed a complaint with Secretary of State Tennant demanding an investigation in light of Obama’s forged IDs, and she just threw it in the garbage. She is the chief elections official in the state. Keith wanted me to stipulate that I would agree to a 30-day extension for them to file papers. I stated that I would consider agreeing to this if they would stipulate to a stay of certification of all votes for Obama pending adjudication of the issue of evidence of forgery in all of his IDs and Social Security number.
[Editor’s Note: Natalie Tennant appeared on Fox News last February to denounce voter fraud, stating “We don’t tolerate election law violations.”]
They’re claiming that they cannot look at the qualifications of the president. So why are we paying Secretaries of State their salaries? If they are doing nothing and deciding nothing, why not just pay an inflatable doll? We could save ourselves quite a bit. With 50 of them who are probably making some $200,000 plus benefits, that’s a lot of money.
The attorney said that as an election official, the secretary of state does not have jurisdiction to stay the certification of votes. She claimed at this point, it is up to the county election boards to do so.
I have filed an application for stay to the Supreme Court of the United States which came from the Court of Appeals about Obama’s Social Security number. The Court of Appeals ruled that they would not provide the original application, the SS-5 for that number, under FOIA, for two reasons: 1, because it is a private matter, and 2, there is no public interest. Because it came out of the District of Columbia circuit, I had to submit it to Roberts and I wrote that he does not have an expectation of privacy in stolen goods. His Social Security number is a stolen number from a state where he never resided. Anybody else would have been in prison for that.
Moreover, I provided them with a sworn affidavit from John Sampson, who was a former senior immigration officer who stated that in those types of situations, they would provide a redacted Social Security form for anyone else. In terms of this not being a public matter, it insults the intelligence of each and every American citizen. They are claiming that a person getting in to the White House with a stolen Social Security number does not represent a matter of public interest. It is a public concern whether we have a criminal with forged IDs in the White House.
That shows the level of criminality in our government. We have criminals in the judiciary…it’s frightening. In my opinion, there are a lot of judges who need to be thrown off the bench because of what they’re doing. It’s worse than Iran or Egypt…they have an illusion of a democratic society but in reality, they’re not a democracy. The judges are there to create an illusion of democracy which doesn’t exist.
In Indiana, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Judge Reid. The attorney general, on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Elections Commission, asked for additional time, and the judge gave it to them immediately. We filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and she stated “Plaintiffs provided a very valid argument,” But, she said, she would need more evidence to meet the burden of proof for a preliminary injunction, so we have to go to trial. The problem there was that she wouldn’t let me put people on the stand. I had Chris Strunk there to testify, but she wouldn’t let him do it. He appeared twice, but she didn’t let people testify. So I filed a Motion for Reconsideration requesting an expedited trial. Our motions were sitting there for about a week, but their motion was granted the same day.