MOTION for Preliminary Injunction - Taitz v Obama (QW - DC district court)

Scribd ^ | 2/16/2010 | Taitz

[rxsid]

"Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney's office from representing the defendant.
Plaintiff is seeking the Preliminary injunction-Injunctive relief to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the Plaintiff to the CA Bar.
...
Memorandum of point and authorities

The only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. "Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office."
...

Preliminary injunctive relief sought
...
Plantiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26,2010 his original birth certificate, which was allegedy obtained based on the defendant's birth in Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.

"..." directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school

"..."directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all passpor applications"

...

Complete MOTION, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27132803/MOTION-for-Preliminary-Injunction

[rxsid]

"Its amazing, one of these Taitz articles gets posted and you have a group pof 3 to 7 lawyers ready to crucify anyone who supports Taitz's spunk to stay with it. I mean you couldn't see a lawyer faster if you rode on an ambulance bumper."

LMAO. You guys are on a role tonight. Any more and I'm going to feel like I need to pay a cover charge or something.

[Las Vegas Ron]

You would figure the media would be just a little bit curious about his reasons for doing this.

Man, you're asking a lot there FRiend, who do you think you are?

< /sarc >

[Lancelot Jones]

He is not a NBC even if he was born in Hawaii.

Exactly.

There are three "types" of citizens listed in The Constitution, and subsequent Amendments:

• Natural born citizen (Article II, Section 1)
• Person born citizen (XIV Amendment)
• Natuturalized citizen (XIV Amendment

Some wish to make the argument that since (or if) Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the Constitutional requirement.

But...the XIV Amendment makes a "person born" citizen, and a "naturalized" citizen equal in every aspect, so it follows then that if being born on US soil translates into being a natural born citizen, then a naturalized citizen can be President.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[Candor7]

Any more and I'm going to feel like I need to pay a cover charge or something.>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

' Well since you feel an obligation do you have any videos of yourself screwing your sister?

[rxsid]

"Has anybody been able to ask Obummer why he refuses to release these basic documents? You would figure the media would be just a little bit curious about his reasons for doing this. I don't think they would give Sarah Palin the same courtesy.

Only Les (?) from World Net Daily. And he literally got laughed at when he asked the question.

Other than that, we all know that the state run media has shivers up it's leg for the guy. There was NO way they were going to question him. Which is PART of the whole problem here.

I would love to hear someone ask him THIS very basic question (from Leo Donofrio):

"HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"

I mean, how in the world could he possibly answer that and make himself look Constitutionally eligible?

[Non-Sequitur]

I’m confused ... a case # is shown .. is this an actual case on Judge Lamberth’s docket ?

Yes. Can't throw a case out until it's been assigned to a judge.

[redshawk]

I agree with the thought that, during the election campain the MSM and the McCain camp gave him a pass. By doing this, they “vetted” him. This issue will never come to light now because, “when the myth becomes truth, print the myth” (from the movie -The man who shot Liberty Valance, one of the last lines of the movie).

Hannity, during the campain, tried his best to expose 0bama and his radical history, yet, no soap. I truly feel that it is now too late to expose 0bama for the fraud he truly is. The window of oppourtunity has passed. (only about the BC issue) I also think that even if some states now pass laws that require “vetting”, these laws will not apply to 0bama, because, well, he was vetted in the 2009 campain now hasn’t he?

Now, here are a few thought of mine reguarding the question, “Why have all the courts tossed out challenges to 0bama and the BC issue?” and why the courts will never touch this case.

1. He was vetted during the campain. (so the left says)
2. He has been elected. Good or bad. Admitting to failure of the vetting now, will put the entire court system in chaos. The people will distrust the courts.
3. To avert massive revolt and perhaps riots throughout the country. Courts are “protecting” the country. Well, so says the left.

Finally: I truly believe 0bama is a scam artist and is hiding deep, dark secrets that, if exposed, would destroy his political career. I also believe, that if his father was in fact 0bama Sr., then boyBarry would have dual citizenship and thus be unqualified and not a NBC.

I hate how 0bama is destroying MY country. Hour by hour, day by day, week by week, and now, Year by year. I think the only chance we have of saving OUR country is to impeach the “talking head and his tele-promter”.

I hope what Cheny said at the CPAC comes true. “0bama will be a one-term President...”.

May God guide us through these 0bama times.

Thanks for letting me rant.
Patriot and TEA party supporter, Redshawk.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

“I can see where that could cause huge problems, is this why courts have been refusing to here cases based on standing, is that their way to wiggle out of it?”

No. The easiest way to explain this is that before a case can be filed, a certain check list has to be met with the court.

Generally speaking, the first issue would be jurisdiction. Does the court have the authority to hear the case?

The second issue would be standing. Does the plaintiff have the right to bring the case?

The political question doctrine would generally not really matter until after those issues are resolved.

Judges in the birther cases have addressed all issues in their decisions. Judge Carter in California for instance pointed out that the District Court there did not have jurisdiction over a quo warranto proceeding. He further explained that all the defendants with the possible exception of Keyes could never have standing. Keyes could have standing under the right circumstances. But since it was after an election, it would be a political question best left to Congress.

Now, I have to go on lunch break at Soros, Inc. We have a great cafeteria.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

I am sure that the DC district court is going to let Christopher Earl Strunk prosecute the president.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Yeah, 'ol Mr. Robert Plant said "I'ts Been A Long Time" so he did the "Misty Mountain Hop" over here.

Immediately, FReepers accused of being a troll which was a real "Heart Breaker", he was beaten so badly by "Four Sticks" so he decided to "Ramble On" to find the girl of all his dreams but she turned out to be a "Black Dog" who wanted to ball all day, he just said "Hey, Hey What Can I do" and went back to Kashmir

You have to be a Zeppelin fan to understand that.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

Truth be told, I’m not much of a Zeppelin fan. I’m a big fan of “Almost Famous” though and love the weird male Zep groupie in Cleveland.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Now, I have to go on lunch break at Soros, Inc. We have a great cafeteria.

Don't forget to wipe your chin when you're done.

[Candor7]

LOL. Thats a twist and a half!LOL.

[Las Vegas Ron]

so it follows then that if being born on US soil translates into being a natural born citizen, then a naturalized citizen can be President.

Yep, What if bin Laden came over here, married an American goat, er I mean woman, after she gave birth he takes the kid back to his cave and raises him as a mooselimb, to hate America, teach him how to undermine our system and then send him back to the US.

The kid runs for and then wins the Presidency and begins to systematically destroy the Country.

Absurd? No, Obama is essentially the same thing, this is why the NBC clause is in the Constitution, just for this type scenario.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Truth be told, I’m not much of a Zeppelin fan.

Gee, why am I not surprised?

[azishot]

I’d asked whether or not an *anchor baby* could one day run for POTUS several months ago. Can’t remember who it was that answered but the answer was, yes.

Kinda blew me away. It’s just not right...(sigh).

[Lurking Libertarian]

I’d asked whether or not an *anchor baby* could one day run for POTUS several months ago. Can’t remember who it was that answered but the answer was, yes. Kinda blew me away. It’s just not right...(sigh).

That issue is actually discussed (by the dissent) in the Supreme Court's Wong Kim Ark decision. I think the courts would rule that born on U.S. soil=NBC, period.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I presented a similar scenario to a poster the other day only using Putin as the example, I got the same response that you did.

I'll FRmail the poster to you, I won't give him the courtesy of mentioning him, cause then I'd have to ping him

It was on this thread, a good one if you missed it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2450158/posts

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yep, What if bin Laden came over here, married an American goat, er I mean woman, after she gave birth he takes the kid back to his cave and raises him as a mooselimb, to hate America, teach him how to undermine our system and then send him back to the US.

What if two American-born Communists have a child in Chicago, take him to Cuba where he is raised until he is 21, then bring him back to the U.S. There is no doubt that he would be constitutionally eligible to be President 14 years later (2 citizen parents, born on U.S. soil, 35 years old + 14 years residency). Equally absurd, but the Constitution permits it.

There are many absurd things the Constitution doesn't forbid, because it relies on the good sense of the American people. If they have no good sense, we're stuck.

[azishot]

Thanks...appreciate it. Will check out the link, also.

What bothers me is the fact that before the election there were those that wanted to bring this issue to light and were met with resistance all the way. We were told we as citizens had no standing. No courts would listen.

Something’s really screwey when there is NO ONE (courts) who will address this and correct it. Just pass the buck.