Friday, February 24, 2012

Orly Does Indiana

MR. DUMEZICH: The next proceeding will be consideration and cause numbers 2012-161, 162, 163, and 176, which have been filed in the matter of the challenge to Barack Obama, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. Since more than one individual has filed a challenge against this candidate, we'll begin at the front of the room, you'll recognize yourself as the first challenger who wish to present, identify yourself to the court reporter. Again, after that first challenger, just add anything you have in addition.

[Housekeeping discussion.]

Mr. King, can you report on the documents in the record?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the challenges, notices, and documents submitted by parties have been included in the commission's binder and pursuant to the procedural rules are admitted into evidence.

MS. RIORDAN: Could you repeat that last sentence, Mr. King?

MR. KING: I think the last sentence I stated was, and pursuant to the procedural rules adopted, the documents are admitted into evidence.

MS. RIORDAN: I don't want to admit them until somebody goes through them, if we could consider that as a commission. Okay, so I would ask that the commission would wait before admitting all of these exhibits that have been submitted so we have some sense of their provenance.

MR. DUMEZICH: Let's just say that they've been lodged with the commission, how's that?

MS. RIORDAN: [Inaudible]

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, with that in mind.

MR. KESLER: My name is Edward Kesler, K-E-S-L-E-R. The four of us who have lodged the CAN-1 form are -- will be represented by Dr. Orly Taitz, T-A-I-T-Z, and our issues are concerning, identity issues, passport issues, Social Security Number issues, and education issues, and with that, I'd turn it over to Dr. Taitz.

MR. ?: I've got a question before we take any witnesses. Can you cite as to some law in Indiana or the United States that makes the candidacy on our ballot -- that's the only issue here is is whether the President of the United States is an eligible candidate to be on our ballot, under our laws, that anything, any reference to a Social Security Number and any require -- I'm asking you the question.

MR. KESLER: The Constitution of the United States requires certain things.

MR. ?: Does it require a Social Security Number?

MR. KESLER: No, but --

MR. ?: Okay, that's my question. Is there any law that you can cite us to that requires a Social Security Number, valid or otherwise, as a prerequisite to being candidate for the United States of America, for the President.

MR. KESLER: No, sir, there is not, but with that kind of reasoning, any illegal alien from Mexico wouldn't have to have one either.

MR. ?: Surely you're not contending the President is an illegal alien from Mexico.

MR. KESLER: No, sir. I did not say that.

MS. TAITZ: But from Indonesia.

MR. ?: Okay, all right.

MR. KESLER: Perhaps from Indonesia.

MR. ?: And are you aware that the Indiana courts have ruled that President Obama is a citizen of the United States?


MR. KESLER: I have not been made aware of that, and the fact of being a citizen of the United States does still not qualify one to run for the highest office of the land.

MR. ?: All I'm going to say to you today is we've come here -- and my position is very simple. The evidence you're offering is under oath.

MR. KESLER: Yes, sir.

MR. ?: And you'd best well have proof, because to offer testimony under oath can be a crime in this state, and your testimony may well be certified to the prosecutor of this county for review. We have been for four years hearing people nationwide talking about the birther movement, and Ms. Taitz is all over the news on this issue, and I'm just telling you, I don't think that's an issue in this thing here today.

MR. KESLER: Sir, with having listened to you, I'm not concerned about the birth certificate, whether it's valid or not. I really am not. But what I am concerned about is that none of us were really given a proper chance to vet this gentleman the last time around. I want to make sure he's vetted this time.With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Taitz.

MS. RIORDAN: Ms. Taitz, Dr. Taitz, are you a member of the Bar of the State of Indiana?

MS. TAITZ: I'm not here as an attorney. I'm here as a witness to authenticate all of the evidence and all of the documents that you want authenticated. I'm the researcher who's done all the research.

MR. ?: Then Mr. Kesler said that you're here representing him.

MR. KESLER: Well, she is our spokesperson.

MS. TAITZ: He is -- he misspoke. I'm here only as a witness, not as an attorney.

MR. ?: Then, as far as I'm concerned, procedurally you will be asked questions and you will be answering them as a witness. We're not here to hear a five-minute dissertation as to whatever you wish, on things you wish to -- that's at least my position. I'm certainly not the chair, but I don't --

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, [inaudible] your witness, if you're a witness, start by asking her questions.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, I'm not a challenger, there are four challengers [inaudible].

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, but let's stop for a second. Sir, are you done? Have you -- because what I want to do is I want to make sure we exhaust every challenger so they have an opportunity to ask their question, and then we can get done with it. Have you --

MR. KESLER: I have explained what I had brought forward as challenges to his --

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, so then at this point, your challenge is done, and you've turned it over. So please whatever you do, don't duplicate anything the first challenger has said, and only bring forth new evidence, and remember, you're limited to five minutes.

MR. SWIHART: My name is Carl Swihart, S-W-I-H-A-R-T. Orly, what evidence do you have to bring forth today?

MS. TAITZ: Okay, with that I will provide and authenticate the evidence, and according to Indiana code 3-8-1-6 and 3-8-2-14, the candidate for the U.S. president has to be a natural born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which --

MR. ?: Tell me what evidence you have he was not born in the United States.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, sir. First of all, what does natural born citizen mean? According to --

MR. ?: Ma'am, we're all attorneys. I think we know what natural born citizen means.

MS. TAITZ: Okay. Okay. First of all, the evidence shows that Obama is not his legal name, and I brought forward a declaration that was obtained on the Freedom of Information Act showing -- and you have it in your packet -- that in Mr. Obama's mother's passport records he is listed under last name Soebarkah. They lived in Indonesia, and in his school records he is listed under last name Soetoro. You have no legal right to put on the ballot an individual under last name that is not even his. Who are you putting on the ballot? Mr. Obama or Mr. Soetoro or Soebarkah?

MR. ?: Do you have -- show me evidence -- we're going to -- I will treat you with the respect that you deserve, and I expect to be treated the same. Show me the evidence that you have that this person you're identifying in Indonesia is Barack Obama, and I want you offering that certified, properly certified authenticated records from Indonesia that you're identifying as [inaudible].

MS. TAITZ: Sir, yes, first of all, this is from the United States of America Department of Justice. You received two Federal Express packages with the records of -- under Freedom of Information Act that were received passport records of Miss Stanley Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Mr. Obama, showing -- and you have it in your packet -- that in her passport records he is listed under last name Soebarkah. So this is not the last name of Mr. Obama. He was supposed to be here and rebut this evidence, and first of all, with prior candidates, you have issued a default ruling when the candidate did not show up to rebut any evidence, and before we even go into this, I would like to know why a default is not being issued against Mr. Obama. Is there preferential treatment against somebody who is --

MR. ?: You are a witness. You are a witness.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, Mr. Swihart will ask.

MR. SWIHART: Okay, I'll ask why there isn't a default.

MR. ?: I'm going to object to that question, because it's totally irrelevant for you to ask -- you don't ask questions to us.

MR. SWIHART: Okay, why isn't there a default against Mr. Obama?

MR. ?: We're not here to -- we're not witnesses and --

MR. SWIHART: Okay, I demand a default judgment.

MS. TAITZ: Default ruling.

MR. SWIHART: Ruling, I mean, excuse me.

MR. ?: I move to deny your motion for the default. There you go. I'll make that motion.

MR. DUMEZICH: Do I hear a second?

MS. RIORDAN: Second.

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, all in favor of the motion to deny a default judgment, indicate by saying aye.


MR. DUMEZICH: [Inaudible.] 4-0, ayes have it. So let's do the opposite side of this, so that way we can --

[Brief discussion.]

MS. RIORDAN: So now we're going to turn to whether you meet your burden, and so far I don't think anything -- any of these documents have been properly authenticated. I don't know where they came from. I don't know why they should even be admitted by the commission.

MS. TAITZ: Ma'am, I have presented --

MR. DUMEZICH: Excuse me, excuse me. Just so you understand what happened was he asked for a motion, right? At that point, the motion was denied, okay? Now --

MS. TAITZ: I wonder why.**

MR. DUMEZICH: Yes, it's denied. Now, here's the other part of this. Now, because he did that, because he started it off, they have now made a motion going in the opposite -- or they're going to make a motion going in the opposite direction, which is going to be whether or not to leave him on the ballot, okay?

MS. TAITZ: Yeah.

MR. DUMEZICH: And then it will be closed, okay?

MS. TAITZ: Okay, the evidence that I have provided in this 300-page packet presents testimony. I as an attorney conducted a court hearing in the state of Georgia, and I provided you with court records from the state of Georgia where seven witnesses testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, and there is nothing to rebut it by Mr. Obama.

MR. ?: But they're not here to testify in front of us. We can only hear testimony given by others.

MS. TAITZ: Yeah, so you have some 300 pages in the packets that were sent to you of sworn testimony from the administrative court in the state of Georgia. You also have evidence, exhibits that were admitted into evidence in the state of Georgia. So I'm here to authenticate, yes, what you have is indeed the -- a court transcript and evidence from the court hearing in the state of Georgia where I was an attorney.

MR. ?: You're offering this into evidence.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, I do.

MR. ?: I would move that we deny this evidence, because it is not properly certified, and you hold yourself out as an attorney. You would know that you're not the person to certify court records. So these are not certified records. You've got a packet of several hundred pages of whatever it is, and it's not certified. So you're offering into evidence as records of another court, or of a court in the state of Georgia, among other things, and I do not believe it meets any standard for admissibility as evidence under either the administrative adjudication act or any of the rules of procedure which we are familiar with. So my motion is to deny these documents as exhibits.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, I will continue --

MS. RIORDAN: I'll second that so that we can discuss that just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I've taken a look through these 300 pages, and they're actually not --

MR. DUMEZICH: Let me just make sure I get this right. There's a motion on the floor. I've heard a second. I can now move for discussion. Discussion to Member Riordan.

MS. RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've reviewed these materials, and actually they're not 300 pages of sworn testimony. There are several unnumbered pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is a so-called legal document that you drafted, no grounds for admission, 100 percent hearsay. And then we have several pages of typed transcript, which I've read some of, and it's actually pretty ridiculous, but again, 100 percent hearsay, inadmissible, and there are a number of other many illegible documents, totally unclear where they came from, whether they were printed off the internet or just some random other source. Nothing that is appropriately before the commission. There's been no personal authentication or certification or any reason put forth why this body should be taking the public's time to even review these documents for a minute. And so with that, I would ask that unless there's any more discussion, I'd like to call the question on the motion to deny the admission of this evidence so that we can move forward to looking at this on the merits.

MS. TAITZ: I have more evidence aside from what was provided.

MR. DUMEZICH: We're in the discussion phase of the commission at this point in time. The way that I look at this, you've submitted these documents. These are lodged with the commission. Regardless of what happens today, you have a remedy, which is a judicial remedy, which would be more appropriate. Frankly, I would get an attorney in Indiana, okay, that's licensed here, to put together a case, because what I can see in front of me, and I've reviewed these documents -- and believe me, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama, but he is the President of the United States, and he should not be subjected to this sort of evidence that is unsubstantiated. That's a problem. That's a problem. It's all hearsay.

MS. TAITZ: Sir, it's not hearsay. I have evidence. You're not willing to listen, because you have decided, and this lady has her decision and her mind made before this even started, just by saying this was ridiculous. What is ridiculous? I personally -- I provided my affidavit. I'm here to authenticate my affidavit. Can you explain to me as an attorney what is ridiculous in me authenticating my own affidavit? Can you explain what is ridiculous in that?

[Brief discussion.]

MR. DUMEZICH: Could we have a motion on the floor?


MR. DUMEZICH: Whoa, whoa. You're out of order.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, well, you're out of order.

MS. TAITZ: You're all out of order.

MR. ?: I would ask that this gentleman be removed from the chamber.

MR. ?: Yep.

MR. ?: You're disruptive of a meeting. Could we have security come in, please?


MR. DUMEZICH: Absolutely, and if you're a challenger, you take your time and you come up and you do it.


MR. DUMEZICH: I didn't attack anybody.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, you did. You wouldn't let us speak.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: [Inaudible]. People have a right to speak.

MS. TAITZ: And you don't let us speak. You made your mind before I even started. Why don't you let me speak and provide authentication for my own affidavit? Let the people of the state of Indiana and the media see the evidence.

MR. KESLER: Mr. Chairman, may I speak before you finish up? I would say that you were very cordial when I first sat down. You, sir, were not. Ma'am, you were not. Whatever you do with the challenge is entirely up to you, and we accept that. However, the fact that you instantly jumped on my case over something like the Social Security Number -- do you realize that the man uses the wrong Social Security Number? Wait a minute, wait a minute.

MR. ?: So what?

MR. KESLER: It's fraud. That's the what.

MR. ?: Then take it to the House of Representative and seek to have him impeached.

MR. KESLER: And you know what they would say? Well, we can't impeach him because, gosh, he's probably not the president. What would you do then?

MS. TAITZ: Sir, sir, we need to provide evidence.

MR. DUMEZICH: This has turned into a -- you know what, let's go to a recess. Five minute recess.

[Brief recess.]

MR. DUMEZICH: Quiet, please. We're going to reconvene in a moment. What we're going to do is you'll have your time to make your presentation. Anything that you want lodged, put into evidence, we're going to take and lodge with the commission, which means it's not accepted into evidence, but there's a record of it so you can do whatever you want to do with it procedurally after that. Okay, what I would like to do --

MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible]

MR. DUMEZICH: Excuse me, I'm speaking. I'm going to say this once. One person talks at a time. This is not the Spanish Inquisition here where people are arguing back and forth. I let a dialogue start that I shouldn't have. Okay, I'm not going to make that mistake again. You'll have your opportunity to present. Members of this commission will question you when that's up, when that time is up, and then we'll go to a ruling. But your documents will be lodged with the commission.

Okay, yes. I want a clock, a five-minute clock.

MS. TAITZ: I'm sorry, because four individuals agreed to give me their time, and you stated that you allow five minutes per person.

MR. DUMEZICH: Five minutes and then anything that's not duplicative, okay? So in total, the most you can go is ten minutes under any circumstances.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, thank you.

The challenge for Mr. Obama is due to following evidence. In 2008, when Mr. Obama got into the White House, we did not have sufficient evidence. Today we have sufficient evidence, certified records with signature under penalty of perjury from Department of State showing that in his mother's passport records, Mr. Obama is listed under last name Soebarkah. Even if you would disregard anything, it shows that he is trying to get on the ballot under name that is not his. We don't know who this man is. He is not here to provide any evidence of legal change of name, Soebarkah -- from Soebarkah/Soetoro.

Next, in Indonesia, in his registration for school in Indonesia, Mr. Obama was listed under last name Soetoro, citizenship Indonesian. There is no evidence -- Mr. Obama is not providing any evidence to show that his citizenship is not Indonesian. Furthermore, Mr. Obama personally posted online his tax returns. Even though the Constitution does not state that you have to have a valid Social Security Number, the question is Indiana Constitution states you have to be natural born citizen. How do you prove that you're natural born? You can prove it by having valid identification papers, and the basis for this challenge, that Mr. Obama does not have any valid identification numbers, that the records show that he is using a stolen Social Security Number that was issued in 1977 in the state of Connecticut to an individual born in 1890. This man is a criminal, ma'am and gentlemen, and you are covering up forgery and Social Security --

MR. DUMEZICH: Whoa, whoa. Let's stop. Stop right there. Present your case. We're not covering anything up. We're allowing you to speak your mind and putting it before the commission. If you're disrespectful like that one more time, your butt's going to be gone. You got that?

MS. TAITZ: Okay.

Mr. Obama has posted, personally posted online, his tax returns. In 2008 he posted online his tax returns. I'm testifying that I personally saw his tax returns and saw them through Adobe Illustrator, and thousands of U.S. citizens could see those tax returns through Adobe Illustrator. When you --

MR. DUMEZICH: Do you understand what you're holding in your hand? That is not an income tax return. That is a form 709. Do you know what that is?

MS. TAITZ: This is a page from income tax return of Mr. Obama that he personally posted online. I did not bring the whole tax return. I brought just one page to show that on his tax return, when you open it in Adobe Illustrator, he has -- his full Social Security Number is visible. And I also provided in the packet information showing that the Social Security --

MR. DUMEZICH: Please give me that.

[Ms. Taitz presents document to commission.]

Okay, this goes to quality of evidence. This is not a form from an income tax return. This is a United States gift tax return. It has -- quiet, I'm talking.

MS. TAITZ: I didn't say a word.

MR. DUMEZICH: You just did.

MS. TAITZ: What?

MR. DUMEZICH: So, this form is not what she purports it to be. She's just wrong, okay?

MS. TAITZ: May I respond?

MR. DUMEZICH: No, because you're wrong. You can respond to it. This was not filed with a federal income tax return. I mean, you can slap the desk all you want, but the fact of the matter is when someone represents that this is an income tax return that the President filed, it's wrong in its face. This goes to the credibility of everything somebody says. When she's going to tell us that this is an income tax return, it's just not accurate. If this isn't accurate, it calls into question the rest of the evidence.

MS. TAITZ: Sir, this is one of the pages that was filed. Let me correct myself. One of the pages that was filed by Mr. Obama on April 15, 2010. It was a packet of Mr. Obama's tax returns. With it there was this page, gift return.

MR. DUMEZICH: You are now describing it differently than you did in the past.

MR. ?: Is your point that there is a Social Security Number on this document?


MR. ?: All right, pick it up from there.

MS. TAITZ: Yes. Yes, this was posted by Mr. Obama himself on I personally saw it. This is his Social Security Number. In the United States of America, until last year, when Mr. Obama changed it, the Social Security Numbers were assigned by state. The first three digits signified the state. 042 is the state of Connecticut. Mr. Obama was never a resident of the state of Connecticut. That shows fraud on its face.

Moreover, I have my own affidavit that I provided you in your packet. I am here to authenticate my own affidavit that states that I personally went on Selective Service online, those are Selective Service records showing when you go on online verification, you enter a person's last name, Social Security Number, and date of birth. I entered the Social Security Number that Mr. Obama posted himself. xxx-xx-4425. I entered -- I personally entered -- his last name, Barack Obama, and date of birth, to see that he is indeed using this number, and I got the result, and it is in your packet, showing that indeed he is using this Social Security Number, which is a Connecticut Social Security Number. If it would have been somebody who is a latino, who came from Mexico, and the commission or anybody else would have seen this evidence, you would have stated this is a circumstantial evidence of identify fraud, of identity theft.

The only reason not to come to this conclusion is being biased in favor of Mr. Obama, and here I would like to present this for you.

[Ms. Taitz presents document to commission.]

Next, I have self-check E-Verify where Mr. Obama's name was entered, and it says SSA record does not verify.

Next, I have Social Security Number verification systems where Mr. Obama's -- the number that he is using, xxx-xx-4425, his name, Barack Obama, and his date of birth, 8-4-61, was entered, and it says, failed. That's yet another governmental agency. Social Security Number verification systems shows that he failed yet another check.

MR. DUMEZICH: Where are we on time?

MR. ?: It's expired.

MR. DUMEZICH: Wrap up in 30 seconds, please.

MS. TAITZ: Yes. This is Mr. Obama's -- Mr. Obama never showed up to show a valid birth certificate. He doesn't have it. He posted online a piece of garbage, and he's posting it on mugs and teeshirts, claiming that to be a copy of his birth certificate. Where's the certified copy to show? I am just a citizen. I have no access. I on my own dime traveled to the state of Hawaii in order to check the original. The state of Hawaii is stonewalling and refusing to show the original to verify that what Mr. Obama posted online is indeed a true and correct copy of his birth certificate. What was posted went online. When it did --

MR. DUMEZICH: Your 30 seconds are up. Just put the stuff -- lodge it with us, and we'll go from there. Close the record in the matter of cause number 2012-161, 2012-162, 2012-163, and cause number 2012-176.The record's been closed. Your documents have not been admitted into evidence but have been lodged with the commission.I will entertain a motion.

MR. ?: I would move we deny the challenges.

MR. DUMEZICH: Do I hear a second?

MS. RIORDAN: Second.

MR. DUMEZICH: Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor of the motion to deny the challenges, please indicate by saying aye.


All opposed, nay.

[No response.]

4-0, ayes have it.

Microphones were left on during brief recess. Some snippets:

SPEAKER: Go to the Social Security Number. You need to jump on that. You gotta show the SSN. You went to their website and showed the truth [phonetic].
MS. TAITZ: Yeah.
SPEAKER: So hell's going to be a hot place for people.
SPEAKER: You're in the right place.
SPEAKER: You're biased already before you even start.
SPEAKER: This is making my day. This is so cool.
SPEAKER: So where's the document that shows Social Security? I would jump right into that, because don't we have to just document it?
MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible] it doesn't say that you need to all have socials, but this is circumstantial evidence of fraud.
SPEAKER: Right. Well, why don't we just get someone to certify it, and it's a done deal. I mean, all we have to do is say -- get an expert and say that's all certified. It's done. That's all we have to do. I mean, get an expert. This has been a joke.
MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible]
SPEAKER: I don't know how they sleep at night. It's incredible. You go to youtube and the stuff on there is, like, Kenya ambassador is saying he's from Kenya.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Kreep and Wagener discuss national security, May 2, 2011

Q: Do you think it's significant that this time, unlike in 2009 when I was the only one there with the camera getting the conference, this time was different, because now C-SPAN put in a media request?

KREEP: Well, we had C-SPAN covering it live. We had ABC here. I didn't see CBS, but they had requested also. You know, I think Mr. Obama, in filing or submitting for publication this document, whatever it is, on Wednesday, last Wednesday, actually brought more attention to the issue than any one of us that are on the other side of this issue could have. He made it the news.

Q: I agree. Do you think this sudden declaration last night, almost at the midnight hour on the east coast, that they had killed Osama Bin Laden, but he's not presenting any body, he's not presenting any proof, do you think there was a staged act to take attention away from you and Orly Taitz here in this hearing?

KREEP: I'm not going to say something like that. I have no evidence to that. I have no – nothing on which to base it, so I'm not going to say anything.

Q: Good timing, though.

KREEP: Well, my understanding is that he did it right during the middle of Donald Trump's TV show. So maybe that has more to do with it than us.

Berg's views, outside the courtroom, May 2, 2011

Is the birth certificate Obama released real?

BERG: The document that was released raised a lot of questions, just on the face of it, and then people have talked about there was layers on it and everything else, and I think it's a phony, because my position is – I have on our website, which is, the statement in Swahili by his step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, who states that she was in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, August 4, 1961, when Obama was born. That's pretty tough to overcome, and the recording was made by two ministers, one in Pennsylvania, one sitting next to her at her home over in Kenya.

What do you say to the people who believe that's fake?

BERG: I've understood that some people have butchered it and taken it and changed it around. The original one on our service was correct and was taken with complete honesty by these two ministers.

Why are you pursuing this issue?

BERG: I'm doing this for the American public. I'm doing this for the 308 million people in the country who deserve to know the truth. I'm doing this for our forefathers, and I'm doing this for the men and women who have served our country. 1.6 million have died defending our constitution, and another 1.6 million have been injured, and the millions of others who continue to serve our country, and I hope that – we deserve the truth.

In the past judges avoided this issue, do you think the judges will hear the case?

BERG: I'm still hoping. I hope it will happen, and I'm going to continue my efforts. I will not stop my efforts until Obama releases all of his records. He sealed all his records the first day or second day in office as President, and also until all his adoption records and immigration records coming back at age 10 to Hawaii are released, because I think it will show that he's never legally changed his name, that his name's Barry Soetoro, that he's not natural born, he's not naturalized, his status right now is an illegal alien, and therefore he should not be President, and his term as U.S. Senator from Illinois was fraud.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Orly's Word Salad, May 2, 2011


ORLY: Good morning, again. I'm Orly Taitz. I'm representing Ambassador Alan Keyes, who actually has unique standing, because he ran against Mr. Obama twice. He ran against him for Senate in 2004. There were two finalists in the senatorial run, and if indeed Mr. Obama, as the evidence shows, committed fraud, and he – the evidence that we have shows that he does not have a valid social security number. He's using a number that was never assigned. Does not have a valid original birth certificate. What he recently provided to the public and, I believe, greatly influenced the country as a whole and possibly – I mean, possibly even somehow influenced the courts with all the future proceedings by publishing this computer image claiming that to be a true and correct copy of his original birth certificate issued in 1961, and analysis shows that it's – it's not. It's not a true and correct image of original birth certificate. It's a very inventive computer art, where bits and pieces were taken from different documents, put together, and this image was created.

Not only Mr. Obama has done that, he created this psychological Kristallnacht against people who are now bringing these kind of legal actions to court. He called us carnival barkers, and that started mass hysteria in the media, saying we need to go away, get out of the country, and so forth.

And of course Ambassador Keyes has perfect standing, because if indeed fraud was committed, and Mr. Obama does not have proper papers, he could never become not only the president, he could never become the Senator from the state of Illinois, and Ambassador Keyes and President Obama were the finalists in that competition in 2004.

Additionally, my clients are members of U.S. military, and I'm sure Your Honors know that just recently, a fellow member of U.S. military, Lieutenant Colonel Lakin, was imprisoned when he was supposed to redeploy to Afghanistan and he was asked for his birth certificate, he stated why should I show and not Mr. Obama. He said I will be willing to go if I know that I have a legitimate commander in chief, and he was denied his right to fair trial. The presiding judge – and I was at that trial – stated that he cannot bring the issue of eligibility, and he is today rotting in prison. This high ranking officer is sitting in prison in Fort Leavenworth. He lost his pension.

So my clients, and there are 30 of them, some of them are here, who are members of U.S. military, are greatly concerned in that all the evidence show Mr. Obama not being eligible, him having – him not having a valid selective service document, not having valid social security number, not having valid birth certificate, not having valid educational records, sitting in the White House, and if they are questioning him, they will be sitting in prison in Fort Leavenworth, just as Lieutenant Lakin is sitting there.

Lastly, my clients are 10 state representatives from different states. As you know, Your Honors, there are a number of issues that are currently being heard in different states, among them the health care reform. The states have balanced budget amendments. And they need to know whether indeed when they are trying to implement different measures or executive orders coming from the White House, they want to know that those orders are legitimate when they are implementing those orders in their states.

Additionally, this case is different from all the other cases, and the beauty of it, the standing, as a matter of fact, doesn't even come up. Why so? Because I filed this case on Inauguration Day, on Inauguration Day, and before Mr. Obama did anything as U.S. President, and Mr. Obama never filed an answer, and we had a default hearing on July 13, 2009. Now, if Mr. Obama were to file an answer and he would have stated, well, there is a problem with standing of those plaintiffs, we weould have been arguing standing. However, he didn't, in spite of the fact that he was served four times. During the hearing that I – a motion hearing that I asked for on the issue of default, Mr. Obama could not send his own attorney or U.S. attorney on his behalf, because then it would have shown that indeed he was served. So what he did, he sent this gentleman, assistant U.S. attorney, and it was a trick. They said, well, he is here, but he is not representing the President. He is representing the United States of America. And pressured the judge and me to serve Mr. Obama for the fifth time, yet again, through him, and I refused. I flatly refused to do it.

And Judge Carter stated on the record, well, uh, if you refuse, this case will be dismissed. I'm inclined to dismiss it. It's going to be sitting in the 9th Circuit for a year, and you owe it to the country to have this case heard on the merits. I refused again. I said, Your Honor, we're losing our due process and constitutional rights. You can either give me the default judgment or deny it. You cannot pressure me and under duress make me serve Mr. Obama for the fifth time through the U.S. Attorney's Office. That's undue influence.

And the hearing lasted, I think, over two hours, and repeatedly Judge Carter kept pressuring me, and he [inaudible] violation of due process and first amendment right for redress of grievances, because I was pressured under duress to serve Mr. Obama yet again, and I – and this particular instance was an instance of the court exceeding their – the court's judicial discretion, abusing the judicial discretion.

Additionally, this U.S. Attorney had no standing to be there to begin with. He was not representing the plaintiffs. He was not – he claimed he was not representing the defendant. So he had no standing to argue anything and be part of the case to begin with. And there was an abuse of judicial discretion on part of Judge Carter to go ahead and demand that I serve U.S. attorneys who were not part of the case. They were not representing anybody on this case.

Additionally, as that was done, Judge Carter made sort of a quid pro quo, a deal. He stated if you serve the government the way they want – he didn't even say that I didn't serve Mr. Obama correctly. I served correctly under Rule 4.e., and the U.S. Attorney provided an incorrect reconstruction of the statute. He stated that I did not serve him correctly, that I have to serve him under Rule 4.i., as 4.i. – and I correctly stated, 4.i. is reserved only to governmental officials that are being served in regards to something that they're performing within their duties. I'm serving him regards to fraud that he committed before he became the president. It was not done as part of his duties. It was done for his own benefit.

So, and I'm seeking also an order stating that there was improper reconstruction of the statute. There was an error by Judge Carter, and due to this error, the case needs to be overturned. The decision needs to be overturned.

And there was a clear pattern of undue influence on this federal judge by the U.S. Attorneys Office, or actually by the White House, using this U.S. Attorneys Office, and additionally using his own private attorney, one of his private attorneys, who was placed to work as the clerk for the presiding judge. It was an outrage. It was a clear lack of impartiality, because a Perkins Coie attorney, Siddarth Velamoor, was placed as a clerk for this judge, writing an opinion for the judge. I mean, I came from the Soviet Union. I would expect this in the Soviet Union, but I would not expect it here.

Additionally, Judge Carter read some letters that came to him to his chambers, and in his final ruling, he quoted those letters that were highly defamatory about me, the plaintiff's attorney. I filed motions for reconsideration, and I repeatedly demanded to have access to those letters and have a hearing to provide my side of the story. I was defamed. My livelihood was affected. My position with the State Bar was affected, because the judge included in his order letters that were sent to him directly to his chambers, and I had no opportunity to even see them or respond. Clear lack of impartiality, abuse of judicial discretion, and for all of those reasons, and I'm running out of time, this case has to be - the decision needs to be overturned, and I should get my right for default judgment and forced judgment, discovery of the documents that I was seeking. I did bring – I don't know if the court would be willing to give me more time, I'd give more information.

ORLY added a bit at the end:

ORLY: Well, just to add a few –

Q: You used your time.

ORLY: No, I didn't. I still have some time.


Q: Okay, go ahead.

ORLY: Just to add a few –

Q: Got my timekeeper over here.

ORLY: Yeah, yeah, he's had 20 minutes for Mr. Kreep instead of 10 minutes. So the whole thing was messed up.

Q: Well, you have 20 minutes to divide between the two of you.

ORLY: Yeah, so originally Mr. Kreep spoke for 18 minutes.

Q: No, he didn't speak for 18 minutes.

ORLY: Yeah, he set it up for 20 when he started speaking. So he spoke for 18 minutes.

Q: Why don't you just go ahead?

ORLY: Yeah, anyways, what is important here is that my client Ambassador Keyes was the presidential candidate running against Mr. Obama. So he had perfect standing.
Additionally, we went to Congress, and I presented during the hearings in the district court letters from a number of senators. Specifically I recall a letter from Senator Sessions stating that the Senate cannot decide the issues of fraud, whether was fraud was committed, and eligibility, that it is for the courts to decide, and the senators specifically stated that they want to abstain because they are not the court of the law. They are not judges. They cannot decide those issues. And therefore, it has to be decided -

Q: Excuse me. When did you submit those? Was it after the election or before?

ORLY: The, well, before the –

Q: In other words, when were the senators deferring to the courts? Was it before or after the election?

ORLY: Oh, the letters were sent to Judge Carter. We have sent letters to senators, congressmen. We had a whole campaign.

Q: Was this after the election or before?

ORLY: We have sent letters before and after the election. Nothing was done. Not only that, my clients, members of the military, went through Article 138, which is a specific article of grievances, and I submitted – you have it in with my pleadings – from the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of U.S. Military, from legal counsel for Admiral Mullen, saying that yes, we appreciate this is an important issues, but because Mr. Obama, Commander in Chief is not considered to be technically part of the military, he is a civilian overseeing the military, there is nothing they can do. So we did go and we tried each and every avenue. We exhausted each and every avenue, reaching Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, we went to Congress, we went to Senate, and rightfully, they said it's up to the courts to decide. The senators cannot evaluate evidence. They cannot say if this birth certificate is valid or forgery. That's up to the judge to decide, and that's why I'm asking to overturn this decision and give me an opportunity to try this case on the merits and obtain proper evidence and then submit it Congress.

Q: Listen, we have your argument well in hand.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Gearing up

Beginning April 17, I'll be posting small snippets from the various birther interviews that I find on the internet. They are heating up again. I suppose they are getting ready to smear some more as the election cycle gets going.

So there will be plenty of nonsense to air out.

ETA: I've had to revise my schedule. Snippets will start on the 23rd.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Chalice 11-14-10, 12:20-17:30

CHALICE: All right, so here we go. We've got about, what, 15 minutes here to do the rest of the show, and I don't really want to talk all that much about Meroni v. Illinois State Board of Elections, and I have filed in the courts. I will post about it probably on Wednesday this week. I'm so busy, quite honestly, with this new role that I've taken on that my deadline for – and they all relate to the ballot integrity initiative, and so there's timing on there that is so critical to what's going on right now that I've had to not put that as my, you know, get up in the morning first thing I'm going to do focus, and part of that means that I – we are in the appellate court. I got some kind of a letter on Friday with dates. We are on an expedited calendar. I believe the first event occurs just about Thanksgiving, November 26, but I do anticipate speeding that up. I have a motion that I want to file that I haven't written yet, and that's early this week's goal. Part of the problem in doing that is that it – my whole approach became complicated when I learned that the lawyers for the Illinois State Board of Election was working with at least one individual lawyer from a far leftist group that has been attacking me personally on this issue. So that's problematic, in particular, because these Board attorneys should be objective, and why he was feeding information about what was going on in our proceedings to the left would bring into question issues relating to objectivity. And I don't really – I've never researched all of that as far as where the rules are and what the ethical responsibility is, and I spent time doing that last week and did learn that I do have grounds to be concerned about those connections which I can make very directly.

So that kind of made me take a step back as well as some of the issues related to me getting involved in the ballot integrity program. Our case is so important, but no matter what, it would not have influenced and will not influence the result of those that were on my ballot for this election, and I can only be concerned technically about those people on my ballot. So that makes the filing of the case fall into a category of mootness, and so part of what my next approach to the court is going to be will involve, you know, addressing the issue of mootness as well as putting it into a context to why it's expedited or needs to be, and that reason, quite simply, is because we have other elections coming up immediately, and the same problem reoccurs again.

So lots happening, and it will be this month, and other than that, I don't write and blog a lot about what's going on there, because, I don't know, it's just – I don't have time for it, and if you've got specific questions, you can mail me. If you can help, I need help. Believe me, just because I'm not writing about it doesn't mean I'm not thinking about it and doing work in the background. We do have some legal advice, and this week, very quickly, I'm reaching out to some additional, and also have a number of avenues that have opened up with relationship to funding. So a lot of different things swirling around there.

Okay, end of the – oh, I could probably post my docketing statement, and what is the other thing I wrote? I had to write a notice of appeal, but I wanted to have a lawyer look at those. I know that it's probably part of the public record already. Who knows? I haven't seen it out there. So let me have a lawyer look at those two items and see how many mistakes I made, because I'm not a lawyer, guys, and each step of the way I have to learn something all brand new. I mean, it's like I don't know anything about the appellate court.

So last weekend I spent a lot of time learning the rules of the appellate court and what the rules of lawyers are, and that was my study time. This weekend I had to study issues relating to integrity of ballot and putting together a final report on that, which I'm really excited about my report. I'm proud of it. So I don't know what's going to happen with it, but anyways.

So okay, that's enough on that topic.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Kansas, District 1, Answers to Birther Question

MR. JILKA: I might try to save my colleagues up here some time if they don't want to answer the question. The comment about whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii doesn't merit time for a response.

MR. MANN: I'll go, and I would disagree with that. I would say that I think that he should show his birth certificate, put this thing – you know, to really resolve one way or another, and I think that every member of Congress or judge or presidential candidate should be willing to prove their citizenship. It's in the constitution, and the constitution should be adhered to.

MR. COBB: Well, I would agree. I think you need to get the facts out for sure, but there's obviously some degree of speculation. You know, some people say [inaudible] without a birth certificate. As you said, there's speculation that, you know, he was born someplace else. So I think, you know, get the facts out. Once you get the facts, then make the decision on whether you want to impeach or not, but first of all, you've gotta have facts. I just don't think you can go forward without facts, and yes, if we have the facts, then I'd be more than willing to push the appropriate procedures to remove somebody if they were in fact, you know, fraudulently placed in office. That would be my position on that. Thank you.

MR. WASINGER: I'd prefer to take Obama on by talking about the issues like health care and cap and trade and debate what is on the American people's mind right now. I don't think some of these other issues are really relevant to the status right now. He is the President of the United States. We need to focus on winning back in 2010, winning in 2012, so that we can repeal ObamaCare. I think the rest is just a road that gets nowhere.

MS. BOLDRA: Well, my husband would definitely agree with you, and I think you're right. I see no reason why you shouldn't have to prove your citizenship, and I don't see any reason why he is so adamantly opposed to it, except that there is a very elitist attitude in Washington that I am here and you little people really don't have the right to know. That is, though, in the government books, that is one of the jobs of the party in opposition. They are supposed to be the watchdog party, and that is our job to find out and answer those questions. Thank you.

MR. BARNETT: Thank you for the question. I think it was Mr. Mitchell, as far as I remember correctly. Thank you for your question. I think any question is relevant. When I think of his policies, such as cap and trade, the idea of improving or fixing health care by raising taxes and reducing choices and gutting Medicare, I wonder what planet he's from. Thank you.

MR. HUELSKAMP: The biggest question I have is in terms of the constitutionality of a mandated purchase of health care, and one thing that I believe the Republicans have not done a good enough job is, while most if not all have voted no, they didn't raise the real questions, because we didn't have again a $13 trillion deficit, because the Republicans were overly concerned about the constitution, and we've had a number of folks in both parties that were not too concerned about the constitution. So I think ObamaCare, and I think there might be a chance that courts will overrule and say that's a violation of the constitution, and I was active in the state legislature this year to encourage our attorney general to join the lawsuit of many other states to determine the constitutionality of those provisions, and I might note, the attorney general of Kansas declined to even speculate whether or not that was a concern. So I am certain that's an issue that's going to come up in the attorney general's race, as well it should, because we're looking at the biggest mandate in the history, I think, of this country. That's something I think which is an unconstitutional act by Congress and by this President. Thank you.