Replies

I found, what I think is, a copy of the original letter (White paper). It is HERE.

Interesting to note, is that it begins with this statement:

From Dr. Orly Taitz:

“NOTE from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation Staff.

The below report states: “if Mr Obama fights unsealing his documentation…there will be civil unrest unleashed on the streets”

InfraGrad has a Public Private Partnership with the FBI. The PPP programs has been leveraged heavily from local to international levels to render entities back into Panopolies. The term panopoly was coined by Joseph Borkin, chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice circa 1943, during his investigations of I.G. Farben because the aggregation of businesses were much larger than a monopoly or cartel.

Memorandum: WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION PI: 126:09

NOT CLASSIFIED — PUBLIC DISSEMINATION

March the 16th, 2009

Statement of Purpose:

The content of this White Paper is deliberately intended to stimulate thought and discussion. Informational analysis comprising global security, national security of the United States of America, socio-political-economic forces as a dimension to national security, culture, freedom in human rights, defense and the rule of law are considered within the framework of this treatise.

Overview:

Beginning as campaign rhetoric, the question of Barak Obama’s legal status as a citizen of the United States of America qualified to serve as President, is moving toward a crescendo that might be heard formally by the United States Supreme Court. Downplayed by many, including U.S. Senators on the Republican side and even Senators serving on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as late as Friday of last week, a significant meeting occurred last Thursday, March 12th in Idaho. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was speaking before a large audience (800 in attendance, including the President of the Idaho State Bar Association) on the character of Abraham Lincoln, when attorney Orly Taitz of Mission Viejo, California came to the microphone and asked the Chief Justice if he would personally review a legal brief and a complaint signed by over 325,000 American citizens as to the Constitutionality of Barak Obama’s swearing-in as President. Chief Justice Roberts personally agreed to review the legal brief and the complaint saying such in front of the audience.

Motions to be heard on this critical Constitutional matter have been dismissed already, or not even accepted by courts in many states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Washington, Texas, North Carolina to name a few. But the issue will not go away; it is morphing now to include active members of the Armed Forces serving in “Hot Zones” or theatres of combat. The legal motion handed

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

It also is prefaced with a summary of a C.V....of sorts.

I’ve never heard Orly Taitz advocate violence. I am not aware she ever has. I have heard her express that she has heard other people TALKING openly about things like this (where or how many, who knows!).

This report reads as if she herself has called for this directly, or as if she has the means and the “power” to direct something like this, and has threatened to take a specific course of action in relation to her case, or others. I find that very hard to believe, unless there is some other evidence besides this very piecemeal quote. Her comment is also one small part of what presumably is a paragraph, and in instances like this it is important to look at the CONTEXT of the statement.

IMHO, it appears she may be at risk of being set up as a scapegoat. I certainly hope not...