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.

1 comment:

  1. Excellent transcription of what the Metropolitan News-Enterprise described as a "10-minute diatribe that was uninterrupted from the bench and barely touched on the issues on appeal." Thank you!