The Star actually published this, or allowed it to be placed on its website? Amazing!
Taitz is right.
Obama’s failing to produce proof he is the legitimate President and hiring lawyer to help him hide his records is total disrespect for the office, the country ,and the citizens.
Everyday I’m seeing more media coverage of the BC issue that isn’t pegging “birthers” as tin-foil hat wearers.
Talk radio personalities have recently started to talk about the issue.
It may well be wishful thinking on my part that the dam is about to break on Obama, I can’t help but think this issue is about to break wide open.
what was that question Rush asked a day or so ago...what does the good Lord and Obama have in common????...neither of them have a birth certificate.
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Lawyer notifying president of lawsuit
California case challenges Obama’s eligibility
Posted: June 29, 2009
10:04 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Dr. Orly Taitz
A California lawyer seeking a default judgment against Barack Obama in her case challenging his eligibility to hold the office of president is trying multiple ways to notify him of the action in response to a a judge’s order.
The judge has scheduled a hearing July 13 in a case brought by plaintiffs’ attorney Orly Taitz, who believes the commander-in-chief is in default.
Taitz has told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Now Taitz told WND she is trying a number of different methods to notify the president following the ruling from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”
(Story continues below)
Click Here!
Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation. She said she’s trying personal service, fax and e-mail, among other options.
“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.
“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.
“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
The original service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.
“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.
Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.
Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.
She said her first process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.
“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.
“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”
She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.
“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?
“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.
“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”
I’ll guarantee you he’s violated the election funding laws by taking foreign contributions, but that will never see the light of day. There’s no other way he could have gotten that much money for his election campaign.
Bump!
OH YEAH! My friend is one of them who agreed to be a plaintiff today!! I knew getting him into office was the right thing to do.