Skip to comments.Quo Warranto is being filed today in DC (re: Taitz v Obama)
Posted on 01/25/2010 5:56:50 PM PST by rxsid
Quo Warranto is being filed today in DCContinued: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgv5c76f_1c5rt7dd5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, PRO SE Plaintiff
Barack Hussein Obama, Defendant.
The court has jurisdiction under DC statute §§16-3501- 16-3503. Federal court is proper as diversity between the parties exist and the case revolves around the Federal Question of eligibility of the President under Quo Warranto.
[snip] From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship of and allegiance to three other nations: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.
Taitz is an attorney and has submitted request to Attorney General Eric Holder and US attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor to file Quo Warranto, to ascertain Obamas legitimacy for presidency . After 9 months of waiting she did not receive any response from either Attorney General or US attorney for the district of Columbia. She is seeking an ex-relator status to proceed with Quo Warranto. [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at docs.google.com ...
He and Pidgeon had to file the bankruptcy appeal first. I was wishing the same thing about Leo filing before Orly. He has to be thorough and do things in the proper order and timeframe for the good of his clients though. So, there’s nothing to do but wait.
Shes an attention whore and mentally ill or shes a deliberate freak show created by the liberals to embarrass the eligibility issue. Maybe both.
Well..., when you see who hired her... :-)
That was pretty smart, getting Orly Taitz to work for you...
are you looking in the mirror when you say all this?
Your understanding is incorrect. Quo warranto exists for the sole purpose of examining by what right an Executive branch member holds his or her office.
No doubt. And saddest of all is that some of our fellow FReepers have been fallen for her pathetic freak show and continue to defend her to the end.
Maybe the government should sue Taitz on behalf of the American people for the emotional distress to which she’s subjected us through her traveling freak show.
I’m only half kidding.
Your comments are invited.
Which is more pathetic. A supposedly deranged dentist-lawyer who ungracefully bulls her way into court to publicize the boy marxist’s ineligibility issue, or the idiots that spend their life energy devoted to bitching and moaning about her every move as if they were paid Obamarrhoids?
The way I understand the DC Code (which is codified in Federal law since it is a district), anyone may petition the US Attorney General and/or the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to ask the federal court to issue a writ quo warranto ...
If they both fail to act, the petitioner can then bring the request for the writ quo warranto directly to the federal court ...
It is then up to the court as to whether it accepts the petition ...
This is really somewhat disturbing. I take this issue very seriously and was absolutely hopeful that a quo warranto approach might work. However, the Taitz sideshow could just detract and derail. I don’t think this is a good development.
Will more competent attorneys do this instead of Taitz? Will her suit mess up any of their ongoing efforts?
Unfortunately, Taitz’s filing once again foolishly insults other members of the federal bench who have properly sanctioned her for going off on them, is disjointed, doesn't appear to be professionally prepared and shows no signs of being filed on behalf of Keyes.
I would guess (not a lawyer) that Taitz has zero chance of getting her QW hearing.
I will continue to wait (in the pumpkin patch with Linus as someone suggested) to see whether it becomes in the best interest of Donofrio’s clients, the Chrysler dealers, for him to file for QW, which may or may not happen.
Well, it will be interesting to see if she gets granted leave and permission to do it. I think Leo is going to have a better shot at it.
With all the cmments being made for and against Dr Taitz it seems to me that there are some good and perhaps some legal issues worth bringing to a final closing of the BHO POTUSA eligibility. As for me there are questions about his eligibility. I would particularly like to know why the congressional resolution that OKed MaCain for POTUSA but did not include BHO even though ,I understand, he co-sponsored and voted for the resolution and tried to piggy-back on the resolution with MaCain. I suspect that to some congress people at the time BHO did not pass Article I Section 8 duty #9 as a natural born citizen. If Dr Taitz’s case settles this quandry for me ,particularly as to what changed in the Constitution since then I can go on to more important things.
"Quo Warranto is being filed today in DC"
1. According to Obama's short form birth certificate that we saw on Obama's own website, Obama was born on Aug. 4 and it was filed on Aug. 8.
2. For comparison purposes, let's look at the Nordyke twins long form Hawaii birth certificates: They were born on Aug. 5---one day after Obama and supposedly in the same Kapiolani hospital---and their birth certificates were filed on Aug. 11,three days AFTER Obama's birth certificate that was filed on Aug. 8.
3. If Obama's birth certificate was filed on Aug. 8, then why does it have a HIGHER number---10641---than the Nordyke twins certificates---10637 and 10638---when the Nordyke twins' certificates have Aug. 11 as the date it was filed?
4. Something doesn't seem right.
5. My point is this: It seems reasonable to me that a file number would be given to a Hawaii birth certificate at the time it was filed with the Hawaii birth records department.
6. Let's use our imagination for a few minutes:
a. Obama's Aug. 4, 1961 Hawaii Kapiolani hospital birth certificate comes into the Hawaii department of birth records. <>
b. Let's look at Obama's birth certificate number that we see on Obama's short form birth certificate that is all over the internet: Did it come from Obama's long form Hawaii birth certificate? Was that long form number put there by the hospital or by the Hawaii government AFTER it received Obama's long form birth certificate from Kapiolani hospital?
c. I don't know, but that would be a non-confidential question that we should pressure Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino to explain to us.
d. For instance, we could ask the Nordyke twins to pressure Dr. Fukino to explain when someone put the numbers 61-10637 and 61-10638 on the top of their Hawaii birth certificates we see on the internet: Were they placed there by Kapiolani hospital or by the Hawaii government AFTER it received the Nordykes' birth certificates from Kapiolani hospital.
e. Let's go back to using our imagination a little bit: The Hawaii government clerk receives Obama's Kapiolani hospital birth certificate.
f. It seems logical to me that the clerk would give Obama's birth certificate a file number on the date it was filed: According to Obama's short form birth certificate we see all over the internet, Obama's birth certificate number was filed on Aug. 8, and the number is 1961-10641.
g. Seems like a pretty routine bureaucratic process to me.
h. But, to me, there is a problem with the routine scenario above: It is the filing of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates. The Nordyke twins supposedly were born in the same Kapiolani hospital as Obama but one day later on Aug. 5.
i. My point is this: If the Obama certificate was filed EARLIER than the Nordyke twins' certificate, then it seems reasonable to me to expect that the Obama certificate would receive a LOWER number than the Nordyke twins, because Obama was born one day earlier in the same hospital as the Nordyke twins.
j. This confusion is why we need Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino to explain why Obama received a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins, when supposedly Obama was born a day Earlier than the Nordyke twins.
k. Who has "standing"? Obviously, the Nordyke twins have standing to ask questions about their own 1961, birth certificates. That is, Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino cannot tell the Nordyke twins that she can't talk about their own 1961 Hawaii birth certificates because of confidential rules or because the Nordyke twins have no standing when it comes to asking questions about their own birth certificates.
NOTE: As I see it, the Nordyke twins could request in writing or ask in person about details in their own birth certificates, and I don't see how Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino could refuse to answer the questions in the twins letter or if the twins asked for information in person, or if the twins' lawyer asked the Hawaii officials to answer questions about the Nordyke 1961 long form Hawaii birth certificates.
l. So, I wish that the Nordyke twins could be persuaded to ask Hawaii officials the following questions.
Did the hospital or the Hawaii government put the numbers 61-10637 and 61-10638 on the top of the certificates?
m. If the Nordyke twins could help us, it would go a long way in helping us to prove or disapprove that Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital like Obama's supporters claim.
7. Obama supporters expect me to believe that this is what happened to Obama's Aug.4, 1961 birth certificate when it arrived at the Hawaii department of birth records:
a. Aug. 8 file date: Obama's Aug. 4 birth certificate record is filed by a clerk at the Hawaii birth records on Aug. 8, if we are to believe what we see on Obama's short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
b. The Obama supporters expect us to believe that the clerk, either on purpose or by mistake, does not stamp file number 61-10641 on Obama's long form birth certificate UNTIL a few days after he puts a file date on it.
c. The problem with the Obama supporters' theory above is this: The Nordyke twins were born in the same Kapiolani hospital where Obama was supposedly born but a day later on Aug. 5.
d. So the following scenario is difficult for me to believe:
A Hawaii government clerk files the Nordyke birth certificates on Aug. 11 but somehow gives them lower numbers than Obama---61-10637 and 61-10638 vs. 10641.
However, for some unknown reason, the clerk turns around a few days later and gives Obama the number 1961-10641, which is 3 numbers HIGHER than the Nordykes'number.
It makes no sense to me that the Hawaii government would file a birh certificate on Aug. 8 but wait to put number 1961-10641 on it until AFTER birth certificates that were filed on Aug.11--the Nordyke twins Aug. 5 birth certificates---were given the numbers 61-10637 and 61-10638.
To help us clear up this Obama/Nordyke confusion, we need the Nordyke twins to ask Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino to explain in detail what each item and what each number means in their birth certificates.
I hope that the Nordyke twins, who obviously have "standing" to ask the Hawaii government about details on there own birth certificates, can help us solve the question as to why Obama's birth certificate shows a higher number than their birth certificates.
ZERO-Distractor as usual!!!
Have paid anything yet to F.R.???
He said one time it was only for his entertainment!!!
Hey Buck, if you are so clever and competent, why don’t you step up to the plate and show us how it is done???
It’s easier to be a guttersnipe.
She may be a lousy lawyer ....but she sure did a good job on my teeth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.