Saturday, January 10, 2009
Auditing Obama, by former commissioner of Federal Elections Committee
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wanted to thank you for all the hard work you've done in tracking and tracing all of the fraudulent addresses and social security numbers. Please, see the attached article published in Daily Standard by Hans A. von Spakovsky, former commissioner of the Federal Elections Committee
Please, attach your findings to this article and forward it as an open and dated certified official complaint to (most addresses were already posted on the right side of this blog):
1. FEC- Federal Eelections Committee
2. IRS-Steven Whitlock, IRS whistle blower office SE:WO 1111 Constitution Ave., NW Washington DC 20224
3. FBI Chicago Illinois, cc Robert Mueller central FBI office
4. Secret Service
5 US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Chicago Illinois
6. Attorney General of US Mike Mukasey
7. ICE
Please, demand immediate action, please forward to me your follow up letters with all of these agencies. Who signed for your letters, who did you talk to and so on
Auditing Obama
Will the FEC examine the president-elect's campaign finances?
by Hans A. von Spakovsky
12/11/2008 12:00:00 AM
Increase Font Size
| Printer-Friendly
| Email a Friend
| Respond to this article
Sometime early next year, the six commissioners who run the Federal Election Commission will face an interesting dilemma--whether to approve a "for cause" audit of the presidential campaign of a sitting president, Barack Obama.
From a legal standpoint, this should be an easy vote. Serious issues were raised in numerous media reports chronicling the Obama campaign's probable violations of federal law. If the career staff at the FEC follow the ordinary, regulatory model of investigations, they will recommend such an audit to the commissioners. However, the odds are that the three Democratic commissioners will be under enormous pressure to vote "no." Some members of their party may make it clear that their professional and political careers in Washington will be finished if they vote to approve such an audit. Since it takes four votes for the FEC to take any action, at least one of those Democratic commissioners will have to join with the three Republicans to approve an audit.
Given the credible reports concerning the possible receipt of millions of dollars of illegal foreign contributions; untraceable contributions; contributions from fictitious and anonymous individuals; and amounts grossly in excess of the maximum contribution limits, such an audit is obviously required. (A concurrent investigation by the Department of Justice is also warranted.) Among the most disturbing features to come to light is the apparent disregard by the Obama campaign of the most basic security protocols for identifying the actual source and amount of all the contributions it received, which may end up collecting
more money than any candidate has ever collected in history--almost $750 million.
Obama's alleged receipt of illegal contributions through the Internet, in fact, may dwarf all of the money the Nixon campaign infamously collected in the 1972 election. The public funding program automatically requires an audit of any candidate that receives public funds, so John McCain's campaign will be audited without question. Since Obama is the first candidate to refuse public funding in the general election since the program started, it would be very odd if Obama avoided an audit because of his ability to raise extraordinary funds from untraceable sources.
The federal campaign finance law requires campaigns to report the name, address, occupation and employer of every contributor who gives more than $200. Yet according to the Washington Post, National Journal and Newsmax, the Obama campaign took (or failed to take) steps to ensure it was not alerted to problem donations.
Some of the acts and omissions are so cavalier, it's hard to believe they weren't intentional. For example, the Post reported that the Obama campaign accepted prepaid credit cards that are untraceable, and National Journal reported that the campaign didn't implement a verification procedure to even match the names of contributors using regular credit cards with the names and addresses of the credit card holders.
When asked about it, the Obama campaign said such matching wasn't "available in the credit card processing industry." That is completely untrue--such verification procedures are offered by companies that service credit-card transactions, as well as by banks and telecommunications companies (and was standard procedure for the McCain campaign).
Page 2 of 2 < Back
In contrast to the McCain campaign, the Obama campaign also refused to divulge the names of the millions of small-time donors who contributed (many repeatedly) under $200 to the campaign (totaling $218 million), saying it was "too difficult." However, as Neil Munro of National Journal reported, there are "few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors."
Of course, disclosing that information would have revealed the many instances of fictitious donor names uncovered by the press (like "Doodad Pro"), which the campaign blithely accepted. Media reports show that Obama's campaign apparently lacked even basic software protocols to catch obviously fictitious addresses (like a donor's state being listed as "NA" or "ZZ") or employer names (like DFDFGDFG), or to accumulate small donations made repeatedly by the same individual. If the campaign had done that, it would have had to refuse the contributions, return them when they went above the maximum of $2,300 per election, or identify donors once their contributions top $200.
Compare Obama's campaign to Hillary Clinton's. To avoid the problems with Chinese donors that plagued her husband's campaign, she prudently required Americans living abroad to first fax a copy of their passport before accepting a contribution. In contrast, the Obama campaign had no controls whatsoever to prevent illegal foreign contributions by noncitizens. An investigation by Newsmax estimated that anywhere from $13 million to $63 million may have been received by the Obama campaign from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases (a red flag for possibly illegal contributions). The FEC itself has flagged
16,639 potential foreign donations to Obama's campaign. When confronted with this, the campaign started collecting passport numbers from foreign donors, a completely useless procedure since no effort was made to verify those numbers with the State Department to see if they were even valid.
Obama's campaign has claimed that FEC regulations didn't prohibit taking prepaid credit cards or require it to verify credit cards. That may be true, but that doesn't remove the campaign's obligation to accurately report donor information and to verify that a contributor is really eligible to donate money. Given Obama's unprecedented use of the Internet to raise funds, this is impossible unless you take such precautions at the front end. Any reasonable campaign would know that such steps were necessary to actually comply with FEC requirements on donor information and eligibility.
It is ironic that a candidate who in 2007 billed himself a "campaign reformer," who wanted to clean up the corruption caused by money in politics, would run a campaign that reportedly failed to implement any controls whatsoever to prevent these problems. If media accounts of Obama's campaign practices prove true, then it would seem that the decision was made to collect all of the money that came in, no matter what. Once the campaign was won, who would care if years from now the FEC eventually found a violation and imposed a civil penalty, especially when your campaign employs the best campaign lawyers in Washington that money can buy to fight the FEC and obfuscate the issues? Besides, Obama can assume the mantle of "campaign reformer" again in 2009 and sweep any findings by the FEC under the rug as he proposes "new and improved" campaign finance laws.
Campaign reform has been a bipartisan sport in Washington for years, with its advocates promising new laws and regulations would address perceived systemic ills. Those charged with applying the law at the FEC now face a decisive moment. Will they conduct their investigation to the benefit of both parties, or turn a blind eye to credible allegations of wrongdoing, to the long-term benefit of neither?
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Visiting Legal Scholar at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
< Back 1 2
I wanted to thank you for all the hard work you've done in tracking and tracing all of the fraudulent addresses and social security numbers. Please, see the attached article published in Daily Standard by Hans A. von Spakovsky, former commissioner of the Federal Elections Committee
Please, attach your findings to this article and forward it as an open and dated certified official complaint to (most addresses were already posted on the right side of this blog):
1. FEC- Federal Eelections Committee
2. IRS-Steven Whitlock, IRS whistle blower office SE:WO 1111 Constitution Ave., NW Washington DC 20224
3. FBI Chicago Illinois, cc Robert Mueller central FBI office
4. Secret Service
5 US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Chicago Illinois
6. Attorney General of US Mike Mukasey
7. ICE
Please, demand immediate action, please forward to me your follow up letters with all of these agencies. Who signed for your letters, who did you talk to and so on
Auditing Obama
Will the FEC examine the president-elect's campaign finances?
by Hans A. von Spakovsky
12/11/2008 12:00:00 AM
Increase Font Size
| Printer-Friendly
| Email a Friend
| Respond to this article
Sometime early next year, the six commissioners who run the Federal Election Commission will face an interesting dilemma--whether to approve a "for cause" audit of the presidential campaign of a sitting president, Barack Obama.
From a legal standpoint, this should be an easy vote. Serious issues were raised in numerous media reports chronicling the Obama campaign's probable violations of federal law. If the career staff at the FEC follow the ordinary, regulatory model of investigations, they will recommend such an audit to the commissioners. However, the odds are that the three Democratic commissioners will be under enormous pressure to vote "no." Some members of their party may make it clear that their professional and political careers in Washington will be finished if they vote to approve such an audit. Since it takes four votes for the FEC to take any action, at least one of those Democratic commissioners will have to join with the three Republicans to approve an audit.
Given the credible reports concerning the possible receipt of millions of dollars of illegal foreign contributions; untraceable contributions; contributions from fictitious and anonymous individuals; and amounts grossly in excess of the maximum contribution limits, such an audit is obviously required. (A concurrent investigation by the Department of Justice is also warranted.) Among the most disturbing features to come to light is the apparent disregard by the Obama campaign of the most basic security protocols for identifying the actual source and amount of all the contributions it received, which may end up collecting
more money than any candidate has ever collected in history--almost $750 million.
Obama's alleged receipt of illegal contributions through the Internet, in fact, may dwarf all of the money the Nixon campaign infamously collected in the 1972 election. The public funding program automatically requires an audit of any candidate that receives public funds, so John McCain's campaign will be audited without question. Since Obama is the first candidate to refuse public funding in the general election since the program started, it would be very odd if Obama avoided an audit because of his ability to raise extraordinary funds from untraceable sources.
The federal campaign finance law requires campaigns to report the name, address, occupation and employer of every contributor who gives more than $200. Yet according to the Washington Post, National Journal and Newsmax, the Obama campaign took (or failed to take) steps to ensure it was not alerted to problem donations.
Some of the acts and omissions are so cavalier, it's hard to believe they weren't intentional. For example, the Post reported that the Obama campaign accepted prepaid credit cards that are untraceable, and National Journal reported that the campaign didn't implement a verification procedure to even match the names of contributors using regular credit cards with the names and addresses of the credit card holders.
When asked about it, the Obama campaign said such matching wasn't "available in the credit card processing industry." That is completely untrue--such verification procedures are offered by companies that service credit-card transactions, as well as by banks and telecommunications companies (and was standard procedure for the McCain campaign).
Page 2 of 2 < Back
In contrast to the McCain campaign, the Obama campaign also refused to divulge the names of the millions of small-time donors who contributed (many repeatedly) under $200 to the campaign (totaling $218 million), saying it was "too difficult." However, as Neil Munro of National Journal reported, there are "few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors."
Of course, disclosing that information would have revealed the many instances of fictitious donor names uncovered by the press (like "Doodad Pro"), which the campaign blithely accepted. Media reports show that Obama's campaign apparently lacked even basic software protocols to catch obviously fictitious addresses (like a donor's state being listed as "NA" or "ZZ") or employer names (like DFDFGDFG), or to accumulate small donations made repeatedly by the same individual. If the campaign had done that, it would have had to refuse the contributions, return them when they went above the maximum of $2,300 per election, or identify donors once their contributions top $200.
Compare Obama's campaign to Hillary Clinton's. To avoid the problems with Chinese donors that plagued her husband's campaign, she prudently required Americans living abroad to first fax a copy of their passport before accepting a contribution. In contrast, the Obama campaign had no controls whatsoever to prevent illegal foreign contributions by noncitizens. An investigation by Newsmax estimated that anywhere from $13 million to $63 million may have been received by the Obama campaign from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases (a red flag for possibly illegal contributions). The FEC itself has flagged
16,639 potential foreign donations to Obama's campaign. When confronted with this, the campaign started collecting passport numbers from foreign donors, a completely useless procedure since no effort was made to verify those numbers with the State Department to see if they were even valid.
Obama's campaign has claimed that FEC regulations didn't prohibit taking prepaid credit cards or require it to verify credit cards. That may be true, but that doesn't remove the campaign's obligation to accurately report donor information and to verify that a contributor is really eligible to donate money. Given Obama's unprecedented use of the Internet to raise funds, this is impossible unless you take such precautions at the front end. Any reasonable campaign would know that such steps were necessary to actually comply with FEC requirements on donor information and eligibility.
It is ironic that a candidate who in 2007 billed himself a "campaign reformer," who wanted to clean up the corruption caused by money in politics, would run a campaign that reportedly failed to implement any controls whatsoever to prevent these problems. If media accounts of Obama's campaign practices prove true, then it would seem that the decision was made to collect all of the money that came in, no matter what. Once the campaign was won, who would care if years from now the FEC eventually found a violation and imposed a civil penalty, especially when your campaign employs the best campaign lawyers in Washington that money can buy to fight the FEC and obfuscate the issues? Besides, Obama can assume the mantle of "campaign reformer" again in 2009 and sweep any findings by the FEC under the rug as he proposes "new and improved" campaign finance laws.
Campaign reform has been a bipartisan sport in Washington for years, with its advocates promising new laws and regulations would address perceived systemic ills. Those charged with applying the law at the FEC now face a decisive moment. Will they conduct their investigation to the benefit of both parties, or turn a blind eye to credible allegations of wrongdoing, to the long-term benefit of neither?
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Visiting Legal Scholar at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
< Back 1 2
I need help from people experinced in broadcasting
I was offered to have my own radio show by 3 different organizations. While I would like to spread the word around and bring awareness to the issues, I have no experience in the broadcasting. If you have knowledge or experience in broadcasting, please contact me.
Should this blog allow Anonymous Comments or not?
A question that has arisen several times as this blog grows and matures is what should be our policy about visitors posting comments. Some have suggested that requiring people to log in before leaving comments would be best. However, when this was briefly tried around December 23rd, 2008, there was a lot of unhappiness with this decision and it was reversed.
The difficulty is that many people have a lot of trouble logging in, or setting up an account. It can be extremely frustrating to try repeatedly to log in, when all one wants to do is to leave a quick comment. This is true of the blogger/blogspot comment system, as well as the js-kit Haloscan comment system we have currently implemented.
When this blog was started in the third week of November 2008, anonymous comments were not allowed. However, after about 2 weeks, anonymous comments were allowed to encourage more visitors and more comments and more blog activity. When this started getting out of hand, the js-kit Haloscan system was adopted, and anonymous comments were again disallowed. However, the displeasure that resulted was so extreme that this was quickly reversed and the current comment system was adopted.
There are several options for dealing with those making inappropriate or belligerent comments, including:
*Pre-moderation of comments, so that each comment must be explicitly allowed before it appears on the blog
*Voting on individual comments by users to identify problematic comments easier
*Assorted punitive measures against those who make problematic posts
*Restrictions of various degrees on who can post comments
I ask then, what would you favor? Is commenting important to you on this blog? What do you feel about logging in before leaving comments? Do you have an opinion about the difficulties that seem to be associated with user accounts on these blog comment systems?
I want to give visitors a chance to respond before unilaterally imposing some new restrictions, given the trouble that resulted the last time.
Thank you,
Robert Stevens
The difficulty is that many people have a lot of trouble logging in, or setting up an account. It can be extremely frustrating to try repeatedly to log in, when all one wants to do is to leave a quick comment. This is true of the blogger/blogspot comment system, as well as the js-kit Haloscan comment system we have currently implemented.
When this blog was started in the third week of November 2008, anonymous comments were not allowed. However, after about 2 weeks, anonymous comments were allowed to encourage more visitors and more comments and more blog activity. When this started getting out of hand, the js-kit Haloscan system was adopted, and anonymous comments were again disallowed. However, the displeasure that resulted was so extreme that this was quickly reversed and the current comment system was adopted.
There are several options for dealing with those making inappropriate or belligerent comments, including:
*Pre-moderation of comments, so that each comment must be explicitly allowed before it appears on the blog
*Voting on individual comments by users to identify problematic comments easier
*Assorted punitive measures against those who make problematic posts
*Restrictions of various degrees on who can post comments
I ask then, what would you favor? Is commenting important to you on this blog? What do you feel about logging in before leaving comments? Do you have an opinion about the difficulties that seem to be associated with user accounts on these blog comment systems?
I want to give visitors a chance to respond before unilaterally imposing some new restrictions, given the trouble that resulted the last time.
Thank you,
Robert Stevens
Addendum: Announcement of Removal of Anonymous Comment Option
At Orly's request and for the time being, I have removed the option of posting anonymous comments. I apologize to everyone that enjoyed this feature.
Robert Stevens, January 12, 2009
Oetoro-Sutoro-Obama addresses in NY, according to reader Beth
********************************************* No record found - address found but not apartment number - name search not available - New York County
HOME
PROPERTY
PARKING & VEHICLES
BUSINESS TAXES
OTHER SERVICES
FORMS & PUBLICATIONS
ABOUT FINANCE
CONTACT FINANCE
Property Address Search
To find a block and lot for a property, please enter the borough, house number and street name below:
Borough: MANHATTAN Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Queens Staten Island
House Number:
Street Name:
Apartment Number:
(Enter for Condominiums only)
ADDRESS FOUND IS A CONDOMINIUM, BUT THE APT# ENTERED COULD NOT BE FOUND.
02/03/06 10:30AM
Name - DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
Gender - Male
Street Address - 8 WEST ST APT 4
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10004-1001
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 52
Date of Birth - Nov 29, 1942
Deceased - Yes
Date Record Verified - Oct 94 - Jan 95
*********************************************************Results same as above Name - SUTORO, STA
Gender - Male
Street Address - 8 WEST ST APT 4
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10004-1001
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 67
Date of Birth - 1942
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Oct 94 - Jan 95
*********************************************Address found - different owner - name search unavailable - New York http://webapps.nyc.gov:8084/CICS/FIN1/FIND001I
The Statements List displays information currently available for the Parcel you selected.
Parcel (BBL): 1-1314-1067
Owner(s): ABRAHAM TIMOTHY
Property Address: 235 EAST 40 STREET 8F
Statements List for Parcel
1-1314-1067
January 10, 2009 - Account History
December 19, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
August 22, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
June 13, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
May 25, 2008 - Final Assessment Roll
May 25, 2008 - Market Value History
February 15, 2008 - Notice of Revised Property Value
January 15, 2008 - Notice of Value
January 15, 2008 - Tentative Assessment Roll
May 25, 2007 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2007 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2006 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2006 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2005 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2005 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2004 - Final Assessment Roll
February 19, 2004 - Notice of Revised Value
January 15, 2004 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2003 - Final Assessment Roll
Copyright © 2009 The City of New York
Go To: Finance Home Page | NYC.gov Home Page | Contact NYC.gov | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map
Name - SUTORO, STA
Gender - Male
Street Address - 235 E 40TH ST
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10016-1744
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 67
Date of Birth - 1942
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Apr 93 ******************************************** Results same as above Record Verified – Name - DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
Gender - Male
Street Address - 235 E 40TH ST APT 8F
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10016-1747
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 52
Date of Birth - Nov 29, 1942
Deceased - Yes
Date ******************************************* Unable to locate property records for Attica and/or Wyoming County NY Name - OBAMA, BARRACK
Gender - Male
Street Address - 1234 MAIN
City, State, Zip - ATTICA NY 14011
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Nov 08
HOME
PROPERTY
PARKING & VEHICLES
BUSINESS TAXES
OTHER SERVICES
FORMS & PUBLICATIONS
ABOUT FINANCE
CONTACT FINANCE
Property Address Search
To find a block and lot for a property, please enter the borough, house number and street name below:
Borough: MANHATTAN Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Queens Staten Island
House Number:
Street Name:
Apartment Number:
(Enter for Condominiums only)
ADDRESS FOUND IS A CONDOMINIUM, BUT THE APT# ENTERED COULD NOT BE FOUND.
02/03/06 10:30AM
Name - DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
Gender - Male
Street Address - 8 WEST ST APT 4
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10004-1001
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 52
Date of Birth - Nov 29, 1942
Deceased - Yes
Date Record Verified - Oct 94 - Jan 95
*********************************************************Results same as above Name - SUTORO, STA
Gender - Male
Street Address - 8 WEST ST APT 4
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10004-1001
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 67
Date of Birth - 1942
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Oct 94 - Jan 95
*********************************************Address found - different owner - name search unavailable - New York http://webapps.nyc.gov:8084/CICS/FIN1/FIND001I
The Statements List displays information currently available for the Parcel you selected.
Parcel (BBL): 1-1314-1067
Owner(s): ABRAHAM TIMOTHY
Property Address: 235 EAST 40 STREET 8F
Statements List for Parcel
1-1314-1067
January 10, 2009 - Account History
December 19, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
August 22, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
June 13, 2008 - Quarterly Statement of Account
May 25, 2008 - Final Assessment Roll
May 25, 2008 - Market Value History
February 15, 2008 - Notice of Revised Property Value
January 15, 2008 - Notice of Value
January 15, 2008 - Tentative Assessment Roll
May 25, 2007 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2007 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2006 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2006 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2005 - Final Assessment Roll
January 15, 2005 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2004 - Final Assessment Roll
February 19, 2004 - Notice of Revised Value
January 15, 2004 - Notice of Value
May 25, 2003 - Final Assessment Roll
Copyright © 2009 The City of New York
Go To: Finance Home Page | NYC.gov Home Page | Contact NYC.gov | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map
Name - SUTORO, STA
Gender - Male
Street Address - 235 E 40TH ST
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10016-1744
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 67
Date of Birth - 1942
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Apr 93 ******************************************** Results same as above Record Verified – Name - DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
Gender - Male
Street Address - 235 E 40TH ST APT 8F
City, State, Zip - NEW YORK NY 10016-1747
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 535-40-xxxx
Age - 52
Date of Birth - Nov 29, 1942
Deceased - Yes
Date ******************************************* Unable to locate property records for Attica and/or Wyoming County NY Name - OBAMA, BARRACK
Gender - Male
Street Address - 1234 MAIN
City, State, Zip - ATTICA NY 14011
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Nov 08
Headliner article in WorldNetDaily about my case Lightfoot v Bowen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets 'natural born' conference to follow inauguration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 08, 2009
12:14 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn't a "natural born" citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S. Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20 inauguration.
The court's website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.
The court previously heard two cases in conference – private meetings at which justices consider which cases to accept – and denied both Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.
The court now has a conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg, with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be heard in conference Jan. 23.
(Story continues below)
The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court Dec. 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today's notice confirmed it was distributed for the Jan. 23 conference.
Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling the case, said, "The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: 'Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.'"
She noted the available procedure during congressional review for a member of Congress to object to the Electoral College results and demand documentation regarding Obama's citizenship.
Join the campaign to urge the Supreme Court to take the eligibility question seriously by FedExing the justices.
"Each and every member of the U.S. Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records," she said.
Members of Congress, she said, "can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen…
"This is the message that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them. … (The) truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it," she said.
The plaintiffs in the case include a vice presidential candidate on the California election ballot, four electors and two others.
She said her case was rejected by the California Supreme Court with a single-word decision, "Denied." And she said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, while the Constitution requires candidates to be 35, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of that ruling.
"We'll see what happens," she told WND. "This is not going to go away."
WND has reported extensively on questions raised about Obama's eligibility, and the resulting lawsuits. The Taitz case is the fourth to earn a hearing at a Supreme Court conference.
Twice before the justices have heard the questions, in cases brought by Wrotnowski and Donofrio, and twice before they've decided to ignore them.
The result is that the questions remain unanswered and cloud the impending presidency of a man whose relatives have reported he was born in Kenya and who has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.
The lawsuits allege Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They report Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time, and would have handed down British citizenship.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!
There also are questions raised about Obama's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in that nation's schools and his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
On Friday the justices will consider Philip J. Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
"This is a historic occasion that will impact the office of the president of the United States as never before. No one has ever brought an action against a president-elect candidate challenging his eligibility to serve based on the 'natural born' citizen requirement provided in the United States Constitution, Article II Section 1," said a statement on Berg's ObamaCrimes.com website.
Berg suggested if Obama "is allowed to be sworn in as president of the United States, there will be substantial and irrevocable harm to the stability of the United States of America and to its citizens."
"Because Barack Obama is not a 'natural born' citizen as required by the United States Constitution, then all of his actions as president would be null and void," Berg said.
Last month, WND reported similar concerns raised in a separate lawsuit filed in California.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
Because of the high stakes, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 200,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Join the campaign to urge the Supreme Court to take the eligibility question seriously by FedExing the justices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets 'natural born' conference to follow inauguration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 08, 2009
12:14 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn't a "natural born" citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S. Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20 inauguration.
The court's website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.
The court previously heard two cases in conference – private meetings at which justices consider which cases to accept – and denied both Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.
The court now has a conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg, with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be heard in conference Jan. 23.
(Story continues below)
The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court Dec. 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today's notice confirmed it was distributed for the Jan. 23 conference.
Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling the case, said, "The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: 'Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.'"
She noted the available procedure during congressional review for a member of Congress to object to the Electoral College results and demand documentation regarding Obama's citizenship.
Join the campaign to urge the Supreme Court to take the eligibility question seriously by FedExing the justices.
"Each and every member of the U.S. Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records," she said.
Members of Congress, she said, "can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen…
"This is the message that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them. … (The) truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it," she said.
The plaintiffs in the case include a vice presidential candidate on the California election ballot, four electors and two others.
She said her case was rejected by the California Supreme Court with a single-word decision, "Denied." And she said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, while the Constitution requires candidates to be 35, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of that ruling.
"We'll see what happens," she told WND. "This is not going to go away."
WND has reported extensively on questions raised about Obama's eligibility, and the resulting lawsuits. The Taitz case is the fourth to earn a hearing at a Supreme Court conference.
Twice before the justices have heard the questions, in cases brought by Wrotnowski and Donofrio, and twice before they've decided to ignore them.
The result is that the questions remain unanswered and cloud the impending presidency of a man whose relatives have reported he was born in Kenya and who has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.
The lawsuits allege Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They report Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time, and would have handed down British citizenship.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!
There also are questions raised about Obama's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in that nation's schools and his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
On Friday the justices will consider Philip J. Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
"This is a historic occasion that will impact the office of the president of the United States as never before. No one has ever brought an action against a president-elect candidate challenging his eligibility to serve based on the 'natural born' citizen requirement provided in the United States Constitution, Article II Section 1," said a statement on Berg's ObamaCrimes.com website.
Berg suggested if Obama "is allowed to be sworn in as president of the United States, there will be substantial and irrevocable harm to the stability of the United States of America and to its citizens."
"Because Barack Obama is not a 'natural born' citizen as required by the United States Constitution, then all of his actions as president would be null and void," Berg said.
Last month, WND reported similar concerns raised in a separate lawsuit filed in California.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
Because of the high stakes, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 200,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Join the campaign to urge the Supreme Court to take the eligibility question seriously by FedExing the justices.
From Reader Bob Quinn in NY
This is a letter that was forwarded to me. Please consider the information therein.
Carolyn
Subject: Constitutional Crisis-One Oath Away !
Jan.8,2009 An open letter to: the entire U.S.Supreme Court; the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and all other recipients of my writings
A CONSTITUTIONALCRISIS........ONE OATH AWAY! President-Elect Barack Obama is preparing for his formal inauguration as Pres.of the United States in less than two weeks yet how many are aware that Alan Keyes, a former black presidential candidate has instituted a lawsuit against him, charging that he is not a "natural-born" citizen, thereby making him ineligible to seek the office of President under the laws of the U.S. Constitution. I, a Caucasion, consider myself "non-racist" and share the position of Mr.Keyes. Though my vision is good, in the recent Presidential Race I was completely color-blind. Having said this, I am now raising my voice against what I believe may be an unlawful attempt by Obama to "procure" the Presidency of the United States ! Had he honestly supplied proof of his electability status I would not be writing this letter nor would so many lawsuits have been filed against him because, like it or not, he would have been Constitutionally elected. Listening to then Senator Obama throughout the campaign, I heard a man whose moral utterances are in complete contradiction to the beliefs of my Catholic Faith. Even more distressing was his consistant lack of concern for the unborn, including those who somehow survived birth while fending off Abortionists. What a horrible mismatch to contemplate ! Obama, however, said that a child so born could be abandoned and left to die, whether in a closet, utility room or wherever, if that was it's mother's wish ! Would he feel that way if it had involved his own family ? Four thousand innocents are being killed in the womb daily yet he is preparing to sign legislation which would add approx. 125,000 more victims yearly. Obama left me with no choice but to vote against him because of his "ideals"....not his color. Now it appears the only legal path left is to challenge his eligibility, an eligibility never confirmed. I believe that he knew full well his Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" certificate (COLB), though similar in name to the Hawaiian "Live Birth Certificate", was not acceptable as a valid document establishing "natural-born" citizenship, since it lacked pertinent information such as a Government signature, Doctors name, Hospital of Birth, witnesses, etc. When challenges to his claim of "natural-born" citizenship surfaced he unhesitatingly put a COLB on the website of Daily Kos, claiming that it was a true copy of his original birth certificate. Note that he had no qualms about releasing that particular COLB to the people. What he failed to mention was that a COLB did not confirm "natural-born" citizenship status. Only a "Live Birth Certificate" could ! Was this a small oversight by a recognized Constitutional lawyer ? When competent authorities raised the objection that the Daily Kos posting appeared fraudulent Obama's transparency immediately was replaced by complete secrecy and now he steadfastly refuses to allow anyone to view the "vault" copy of his birth certificate. Even letters, lawsuits,newspaper ads are ignored and not even acknowledged. Why ? Would it reveal information which would only further confirm that he was ineligible to seek the Office of President ? Obama might have settled this issue for under fifty dollars by having his "vault" certificate released to the public by Hawaiian authorities. Instead, he has caused over twenty lawsuits to be filed in search of the truth (imagine the cost) yet he has reportedly incurred over one million dollars in legal fees with multible law firms to prevent anyone from viewing the "vault" copy. Who in their right mind would pay out such sums to avoid going public unless they feared exposure of a dark secret (no pun intended) ? How naive does he consider the American people to be, though I wonder just how naive we have become ? Please reflect on this: Obama wishes to become our President but won't release records which should confirm his eligibility while we citizens must produce those same records for marriage, military service,etc. Remember how he often said he would meet with any World Leader, even Terrorists, with no pre-conditions ? What if the President of Iran agreed to meet with him, on condition that due to the notoriety about this issue he must first produce a valid "Live Birth Certificate" as proof that he was empowered to speak and act for the United States Government ? Would Obama authorize the release to the Iranian Government of a document which he refuses to release to the American People ? He would be on the horns of a dilemma for, if he allowed its release and it is shown to be a 'COLB" rather than a true "Live Birth Certificate", he would immediately forfeit any eligibility to even seek the Presidency. On the other hand, if he directly refused to satisfy the Iranian request he would be telling the entire world that disclosure of his birth certificate would invalidate any claim he made to the Office. The only other negative option available would be to maintain complete silence, which is what he is doing to the American People. It's called stonewalling ! If Arnold Schwarzenegger had kept his Austrian birth certificate secret he might have succeeded in adding a "World President" belt to his other trophies.
THE CART IS BEFORE THE HORSE Truly disgraceful is the conspiratorial-like non-reporting by the Major Media of the existence of the many lawsuits, encompassing plaintiffs of Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic origin which were or are challenging Obama's claim of "natural-born" citizenship. What the media gives us are crescendos of silence, until a lawsuit has been rejected, usually for presumed lack of "standing". Then, and only then, are we made aware that the lawsuit even existed. As I've said above, they have reversed the order of the horse and the cart. Guess which then reaches us more quickly....wares or waste ? As more and more citizens clamor for transparency by Obama, seeking a public release of his "vault" birth certificate and Occidental College records (listed as foreign student ?) some of his defenders call those citizens "crazy" or refer to the issues as "garbage". So much for civilized, relevant responses to genuine concerns. Our Constitution was obtained at a great price. Though written in ink, it had been purchased in blood....the blood of our Forefathers.
The Founders of our Nation deliberately inserted a "natural-born" citizenship requirement for anyone seeking the Office of President to ensure that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for the future. Imagine their reaction if someone preparing to lead our country with an oath to defend the Constitution refused to allow anyone to question his eligibility credentials; today you would not find that person's portrait in The Hall of Presidents.
Were our Forefathers "crazy" and the issues "garbage". I think not.
GENERAL COMMENTS For brevity, I will only refer to some additional topics of concern:
1) No Hawaiian hospital is reported to have a record of Obama's being actually born there, including two which were each separately claimed (shades of King Solomon) as his birth hospital by various family members.
2) His Kenyan grandmother's testimony reportedly identifies Kenya as his birthplace and her witnessing his birth.
3) In the 1980's he traveled to Pakistan, but records show that he did not obtain his first American passport until years later. What nationality did he claim, since Pakistan was not allowing those with American passports into the Country while war was going on ?
4) He is reported to have attended school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, when only Indonesian citizens were permitted to attend.
CONCLUSION No one can promise to defend our Constitution and ignore it when it pertains to themselves. That was a "privilege" reserved by Dictators and Kings for themselves and, also,a reason for the establishment of our Country. Obama was elected to be a servant of the people....not their master. If he really wishes to unite our Nation let him release his "vault" birth certificate and other records requested and then step up....or down, accordingly, thereby bringing closure to this issue.
Robert Quinn New York PS: In shortening my references to Pres.-Elect Obama to "Obama" no disrespect was intended. I simply had a lot to say and tried to limit excess words and unnecessary repetition because many on my list are senior citizens who like to retire early. All may freely pass my letter on.
Carolyn
Subject: Constitutional Crisis-One Oath Away !
Jan.8,2009 An open letter to: the entire U.S.Supreme Court; the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and all other recipients of my writings
A CONSTITUTIONALCRISIS........ONE OATH AWAY! President-Elect Barack Obama is preparing for his formal inauguration as Pres.of the United States in less than two weeks yet how many are aware that Alan Keyes, a former black presidential candidate has instituted a lawsuit against him, charging that he is not a "natural-born" citizen, thereby making him ineligible to seek the office of President under the laws of the U.S. Constitution. I, a Caucasion, consider myself "non-racist" and share the position of Mr.Keyes. Though my vision is good, in the recent Presidential Race I was completely color-blind. Having said this, I am now raising my voice against what I believe may be an unlawful attempt by Obama to "procure" the Presidency of the United States ! Had he honestly supplied proof of his electability status I would not be writing this letter nor would so many lawsuits have been filed against him because, like it or not, he would have been Constitutionally elected. Listening to then Senator Obama throughout the campaign, I heard a man whose moral utterances are in complete contradiction to the beliefs of my Catholic Faith. Even more distressing was his consistant lack of concern for the unborn, including those who somehow survived birth while fending off Abortionists. What a horrible mismatch to contemplate ! Obama, however, said that a child so born could be abandoned and left to die, whether in a closet, utility room or wherever, if that was it's mother's wish ! Would he feel that way if it had involved his own family ? Four thousand innocents are being killed in the womb daily yet he is preparing to sign legislation which would add approx. 125,000 more victims yearly. Obama left me with no choice but to vote against him because of his "ideals"....not his color. Now it appears the only legal path left is to challenge his eligibility, an eligibility never confirmed. I believe that he knew full well his Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" certificate (COLB), though similar in name to the Hawaiian "Live Birth Certificate", was not acceptable as a valid document establishing "natural-born" citizenship, since it lacked pertinent information such as a Government signature, Doctors name, Hospital of Birth, witnesses, etc. When challenges to his claim of "natural-born" citizenship surfaced he unhesitatingly put a COLB on the website of Daily Kos, claiming that it was a true copy of his original birth certificate. Note that he had no qualms about releasing that particular COLB to the people. What he failed to mention was that a COLB did not confirm "natural-born" citizenship status. Only a "Live Birth Certificate" could ! Was this a small oversight by a recognized Constitutional lawyer ? When competent authorities raised the objection that the Daily Kos posting appeared fraudulent Obama's transparency immediately was replaced by complete secrecy and now he steadfastly refuses to allow anyone to view the "vault" copy of his birth certificate. Even letters, lawsuits,newspaper ads are ignored and not even acknowledged. Why ? Would it reveal information which would only further confirm that he was ineligible to seek the Office of President ? Obama might have settled this issue for under fifty dollars by having his "vault" certificate released to the public by Hawaiian authorities. Instead, he has caused over twenty lawsuits to be filed in search of the truth (imagine the cost) yet he has reportedly incurred over one million dollars in legal fees with multible law firms to prevent anyone from viewing the "vault" copy. Who in their right mind would pay out such sums to avoid going public unless they feared exposure of a dark secret (no pun intended) ? How naive does he consider the American people to be, though I wonder just how naive we have become ? Please reflect on this: Obama wishes to become our President but won't release records which should confirm his eligibility while we citizens must produce those same records for marriage, military service,etc. Remember how he often said he would meet with any World Leader, even Terrorists, with no pre-conditions ? What if the President of Iran agreed to meet with him, on condition that due to the notoriety about this issue he must first produce a valid "Live Birth Certificate" as proof that he was empowered to speak and act for the United States Government ? Would Obama authorize the release to the Iranian Government of a document which he refuses to release to the American People ? He would be on the horns of a dilemma for, if he allowed its release and it is shown to be a 'COLB" rather than a true "Live Birth Certificate", he would immediately forfeit any eligibility to even seek the Presidency. On the other hand, if he directly refused to satisfy the Iranian request he would be telling the entire world that disclosure of his birth certificate would invalidate any claim he made to the Office. The only other negative option available would be to maintain complete silence, which is what he is doing to the American People. It's called stonewalling ! If Arnold Schwarzenegger had kept his Austrian birth certificate secret he might have succeeded in adding a "World President" belt to his other trophies.
THE CART IS BEFORE THE HORSE Truly disgraceful is the conspiratorial-like non-reporting by the Major Media of the existence of the many lawsuits, encompassing plaintiffs of Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic origin which were or are challenging Obama's claim of "natural-born" citizenship. What the media gives us are crescendos of silence, until a lawsuit has been rejected, usually for presumed lack of "standing". Then, and only then, are we made aware that the lawsuit even existed. As I've said above, they have reversed the order of the horse and the cart. Guess which then reaches us more quickly....wares or waste ? As more and more citizens clamor for transparency by Obama, seeking a public release of his "vault" birth certificate and Occidental College records (listed as foreign student ?) some of his defenders call those citizens "crazy" or refer to the issues as "garbage". So much for civilized, relevant responses to genuine concerns. Our Constitution was obtained at a great price. Though written in ink, it had been purchased in blood....the blood of our Forefathers.
The Founders of our Nation deliberately inserted a "natural-born" citizenship requirement for anyone seeking the Office of President to ensure that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for the future. Imagine their reaction if someone preparing to lead our country with an oath to defend the Constitution refused to allow anyone to question his eligibility credentials; today you would not find that person's portrait in The Hall of Presidents.
Were our Forefathers "crazy" and the issues "garbage". I think not.
GENERAL COMMENTS For brevity, I will only refer to some additional topics of concern:
1) No Hawaiian hospital is reported to have a record of Obama's being actually born there, including two which were each separately claimed (shades of King Solomon) as his birth hospital by various family members.
2) His Kenyan grandmother's testimony reportedly identifies Kenya as his birthplace and her witnessing his birth.
3) In the 1980's he traveled to Pakistan, but records show that he did not obtain his first American passport until years later. What nationality did he claim, since Pakistan was not allowing those with American passports into the Country while war was going on ?
4) He is reported to have attended school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, when only Indonesian citizens were permitted to attend.
CONCLUSION No one can promise to defend our Constitution and ignore it when it pertains to themselves. That was a "privilege" reserved by Dictators and Kings for themselves and, also,a reason for the establishment of our Country. Obama was elected to be a servant of the people....not their master. If he really wishes to unite our Nation let him release his "vault" birth certificate and other records requested and then step up....or down, accordingly, thereby bringing closure to this issue.
Robert Quinn New York PS: In shortening my references to Pres.-Elect Obama to "Obama" no disrespect was intended. I simply had a lot to say and tried to limit excess words and unnecessary repetition because many on my list are senior citizens who like to retire early. All may freely pass my letter on.
Can anyone verify this info?
Friday, January 9, 2009 3:32 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "pj jp"Add sender to Contacts To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
I work in Toronto Canada in the Choice point R&D dept. The person you are looking for is a relative of Joe Biden.
His niece, Julie.
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "pj jp"
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
I work in Toronto Canada in the Choice point R&D dept. The person you are looking for is a relative of Joe Biden.
His niece, Julie.
I called Diane Feinstein, provided info to her aid and stated it is extremely important, haven't heard back
Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Identity Theft
(July 13, 2000) The Senate Technology Subcommittee held another hearing on identity theft on July 12. Sen. Feinstein is sponsoring legislation to restrict the purchase of social security numbers over the Internet, one means by which criminals are able to assume another person's identity.
Related Pages
Prepared Statement of Sen. Kyl [PDF], 7/12/00.
March 7, 2000 hearing (web page in Senate Judiciary Committee web site with links to prepared statements).
S 2328 IS, Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.
S 2699 IS, Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000
The hearing, titled "Identity Theft: How to Protect and Restore Your Good Name," was conducted by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, respectively.
The hearing addressed the many ways that criminals obtain information that enables them to assume the identities of others, the harmful consequences that it has for the victims, and legislation to remedy the problem.
Sen. Feinstein focused also on the role of the Internet in facilitating identity theft.
The Subcommittee conducted as similar hearing on March 7, 2000.
Sen. Kyl stated that "criminals often use the social security numbers and other personal information to assume the identity of law abiding citizens and take their money. It is high tech theft."
Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterent Act in the last Congress, which criminalized identity theft. However, Sen. Kyl stated that "identity theft, unfortunately, continues to grow, particularly as the Internet grows in popularity."
"How does it happen?" Sen. Kyl asked rhetorically. "Technology enables new sophisticated means of identity theft. Using a variety of methods criminals steal social security numbers, credit card numbers, drivers license numbers, ATM cards, telephone calling cards, and other pieces of a citizens identity. Victims are often left with a bad credit report, and must often spend months, and even years, regaining their financial wholeness. In the mean time, they have difficulty writing checks, obtaining loans, renting apartments, getting their children financial aid for college, even getting hired."
"In Fiscal Year 1999, the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General Hotline for Fraud and Abuse reported more than 62,000 instances of misuse of Social Security Numbers," said Sen. Kyl. Social Security Inspector General Jim Huse was on hand to testify in further detail about the extent of the problem. (See, Huse testimony [PDF].)
The two Senators are trying to draw public and Senate attention and support for their proposals to alleviate the problem of identity theft.
"The key to prevention," said Sen. Kyl, "is businesses establishing responsible information handing practices, and for the credit industry to adopt stricter application verification procedures, and to put limits on data disclosure."
Sen. Kyl and Sen. Feinstein addressed two bills at the hearing:
S 2328, the Identity Theft and Prevention Act, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein, and cosponsored by Sen. Kyl.
S 2699, Social Security Number Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein.
S 2328 would require businesses to adopt certain practices designed to reduce the frequency of identity theft, such as:
require a credit card issuer to confirm a change of address with the cardholder within 10 days,
require that conspicuous fraud alerts appear on credit reports, and
require credit issuers and credit bureaus to develop a single form for victims to report identity fraud.
Sen. Feinstein also indicated that she intends to introduce another bill, that would expand the principles of S 2699 to include drivers licenses, personal medical data, and personal financial data.
Sen. Dianne
Feinstein
(D-CA)
Sen. Feinstein elaborated on the role of the Internet in the sale of Social Security Numbers. "Identity theft victims have actually been calling on our office with story after story of these crimes. And let me give you a couple of examples. My constituent, Amy Bradbury, of Castral Valley, reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in just ten seconds. The false application had her Social Security Number and birth date correct."
"As a matter of fact, my staff has compiled a list of about twelve different Internet web sites where personal information can be purchased for as little as $25. Let me read their comments on one web site called digdirt.com. Here is one that is not online access per se, but it will blow your mind as to what they offer. You hire them, they do the work, they get back to you -- medical records, phone numbers, assets, etc. I am not going to say the name of all of these web sites, but I would like to enter them into the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman." (Tech Law Journal has requested, but not received, a copy of this document from the Judiciary Committee, the Technology Subcommittee, and the office of Sen. Feinstein.)
Social Security Inspector General Jim Huse addressed the sale of Social Security Numbers over the Internet in his testimony. He stated:
"Because of the increasing role that the Internet is playing in SSN misuse and identity theft, we have expanded the scope of these pilots to include the sale of Social Security cards over the Internet. Using undercover purchases of Social Security cards, we can determine which vendors actually provide buyers with fraudulent documents and which merely take the money and run. We are very optimistic that we will be able to shut down several important Internet distributors of false identification documents with this initiative."
"On the other side of e-commerce, we started another operation targeted, not at those who sell false identification documents over the Internet, but at those who buy them. This effort has two goals. First, we can locate and stop those who purchase counterfeit Social Security cards that might be used in identity theft crimes. And second, it will enable us, for the first time, to determine both the scope of Internet trafficking in false identification documents and the many ways one can use a false SSN."
"Amy -- well, let me give you another example. Lynn Kleinenberg (spelling?) of Los Angeles, her husband was an executive at Cedar Sinai Medical Center. He died in December. The identity theft there used her husband's obituary to get the maiden names, then went to the Internet, purchased the various documents, and she had $200,000 in diamond purchases charged against her," said Sen. Feinstein.
"Another person, Amy Boyer, a twenty year old dental assistant from Maine, was killed last year by a stalker who bought her social security off the Internet for $45. Incidentally, some of these web sites provide, you can buy it for $25 now. And then they used the Social Security Number to locate her work address, and go out and stalk her and kill her."
"I have two proposals pending before the Congress today, and I hope we can discuss them. The first prohibits the sale of Social Security Numbers. This administration, the administration actually is supportive of this legislation. I am hopeful we can pass it. It, Senate Bill 2699, entitled the Social Security Number Protection Act, that would restrict the sale and purchase of Social Security Numbers. It has some exceptions."
Sen. Feinstein continued that "I am also right now writing legislation to amend that to provide for the same stipulations to a drivers license, to personal medical information, and personal financial data, and to provide an opt in. In other words, the Internet site would have to get the permission of the individual before using their Social Security Number, their drivers license, their personal medical information, or their personal financial information. Now, this is very controversial."
Both Jodie Bernstein of the FTC and Jim Huse of the Social Security Administration expressed support for S 2328; but, neither endorsed S 2699. However, Beth Givins of the Privacy Right Clearinghouse did testify that Social Security Numbers "certainly should not be for sale on the Net."
What They Said
(Links to Prepared Statements
of Witnesses in the Judiciary
Committee Web Site in PDF.)
Jodie Bernstein, FTC
Jim Huse, Social Security Admin.
Beth Givins, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Steve Emmert, Lexis/Nexus
Stuart Pratt, Associated Credit Bureaus
Michelle Brown, Identity Theft Victim
Steve Emmert, of Lexis/Nexus, and Stuart Pratt, of Associated Credit Bureaus, both testified regarding the legitimate market for personal data, including social security numbers. Emmert testified that "the availability of individual reference services helps to reduce identity theft."
He also argued that many types of sales of Social Security Numbers should remain legal. He covered several examples, including: locating criminals and witnesses by law enforcement authorities, locating heirs, locating pension fund beneficiaries, locating victims of fraud schemes and environmental hazards, and tracking down parents who are delinquent in child support payments. He also said that banking, insurance, and database companies, such as Lexis/Nexus, ought to be exempt.
Sen. Feinstein offered to work with Emmert in crafting a bill that would meet their concerns, but prevent individuals from buying Social Security Numbers over the Internet.
Sen. Feinstein also conceded that she was having difficulty moving her legislation. Regarding S 2328, she lamented, "I doubt very much the Banking Committee is going to move the bill."
(July 13, 2000) The Senate Technology Subcommittee held another hearing on identity theft on July 12. Sen. Feinstein is sponsoring legislation to restrict the purchase of social security numbers over the Internet, one means by which criminals are able to assume another person's identity.
Related Pages
Prepared Statement of Sen. Kyl [PDF], 7/12/00.
March 7, 2000 hearing (web page in Senate Judiciary Committee web site with links to prepared statements).
S 2328 IS, Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.
S 2699 IS, Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000
The hearing, titled "Identity Theft: How to Protect and Restore Your Good Name," was conducted by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, respectively.
The hearing addressed the many ways that criminals obtain information that enables them to assume the identities of others, the harmful consequences that it has for the victims, and legislation to remedy the problem.
Sen. Feinstein focused also on the role of the Internet in facilitating identity theft.
The Subcommittee conducted as similar hearing on March 7, 2000.
Sen. Kyl stated that "criminals often use the social security numbers and other personal information to assume the identity of law abiding citizens and take their money. It is high tech theft."
Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterent Act in the last Congress, which criminalized identity theft. However, Sen. Kyl stated that "identity theft, unfortunately, continues to grow, particularly as the Internet grows in popularity."
"How does it happen?" Sen. Kyl asked rhetorically. "Technology enables new sophisticated means of identity theft. Using a variety of methods criminals steal social security numbers, credit card numbers, drivers license numbers, ATM cards, telephone calling cards, and other pieces of a citizens identity. Victims are often left with a bad credit report, and must often spend months, and even years, regaining their financial wholeness. In the mean time, they have difficulty writing checks, obtaining loans, renting apartments, getting their children financial aid for college, even getting hired."
"In Fiscal Year 1999, the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General Hotline for Fraud and Abuse reported more than 62,000 instances of misuse of Social Security Numbers," said Sen. Kyl. Social Security Inspector General Jim Huse was on hand to testify in further detail about the extent of the problem. (See, Huse testimony [PDF].)
The two Senators are trying to draw public and Senate attention and support for their proposals to alleviate the problem of identity theft.
"The key to prevention," said Sen. Kyl, "is businesses establishing responsible information handing practices, and for the credit industry to adopt stricter application verification procedures, and to put limits on data disclosure."
Sen. Kyl and Sen. Feinstein addressed two bills at the hearing:
S 2328, the Identity Theft and Prevention Act, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein, and cosponsored by Sen. Kyl.
S 2699, Social Security Number Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein.
S 2328 would require businesses to adopt certain practices designed to reduce the frequency of identity theft, such as:
require a credit card issuer to confirm a change of address with the cardholder within 10 days,
require that conspicuous fraud alerts appear on credit reports, and
require credit issuers and credit bureaus to develop a single form for victims to report identity fraud.
Sen. Feinstein also indicated that she intends to introduce another bill, that would expand the principles of S 2699 to include drivers licenses, personal medical data, and personal financial data.
Sen. Dianne
Feinstein
(D-CA)
Sen. Feinstein elaborated on the role of the Internet in the sale of Social Security Numbers. "Identity theft victims have actually been calling on our office with story after story of these crimes. And let me give you a couple of examples. My constituent, Amy Bradbury, of Castral Valley, reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in just ten seconds. The false application had her Social Security Number and birth date correct."
"As a matter of fact, my staff has compiled a list of about twelve different Internet web sites where personal information can be purchased for as little as $25. Let me read their comments on one web site called digdirt.com. Here is one that is not online access per se, but it will blow your mind as to what they offer. You hire them, they do the work, they get back to you -- medical records, phone numbers, assets, etc. I am not going to say the name of all of these web sites, but I would like to enter them into the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman." (Tech Law Journal has requested, but not received, a copy of this document from the Judiciary Committee, the Technology Subcommittee, and the office of Sen. Feinstein.)
Social Security Inspector General Jim Huse addressed the sale of Social Security Numbers over the Internet in his testimony. He stated:
"Because of the increasing role that the Internet is playing in SSN misuse and identity theft, we have expanded the scope of these pilots to include the sale of Social Security cards over the Internet. Using undercover purchases of Social Security cards, we can determine which vendors actually provide buyers with fraudulent documents and which merely take the money and run. We are very optimistic that we will be able to shut down several important Internet distributors of false identification documents with this initiative."
"On the other side of e-commerce, we started another operation targeted, not at those who sell false identification documents over the Internet, but at those who buy them. This effort has two goals. First, we can locate and stop those who purchase counterfeit Social Security cards that might be used in identity theft crimes. And second, it will enable us, for the first time, to determine both the scope of Internet trafficking in false identification documents and the many ways one can use a false SSN."
"Amy -- well, let me give you another example. Lynn Kleinenberg (spelling?) of Los Angeles, her husband was an executive at Cedar Sinai Medical Center. He died in December. The identity theft there used her husband's obituary to get the maiden names, then went to the Internet, purchased the various documents, and she had $200,000 in diamond purchases charged against her," said Sen. Feinstein.
"Another person, Amy Boyer, a twenty year old dental assistant from Maine, was killed last year by a stalker who bought her social security off the Internet for $45. Incidentally, some of these web sites provide, you can buy it for $25 now. And then they used the Social Security Number to locate her work address, and go out and stalk her and kill her."
"I have two proposals pending before the Congress today, and I hope we can discuss them. The first prohibits the sale of Social Security Numbers. This administration, the administration actually is supportive of this legislation. I am hopeful we can pass it. It, Senate Bill 2699, entitled the Social Security Number Protection Act, that would restrict the sale and purchase of Social Security Numbers. It has some exceptions."
Sen. Feinstein continued that "I am also right now writing legislation to amend that to provide for the same stipulations to a drivers license, to personal medical information, and personal financial data, and to provide an opt in. In other words, the Internet site would have to get the permission of the individual before using their Social Security Number, their drivers license, their personal medical information, or their personal financial information. Now, this is very controversial."
Both Jodie Bernstein of the FTC and Jim Huse of the Social Security Administration expressed support for S 2328; but, neither endorsed S 2699. However, Beth Givins of the Privacy Right Clearinghouse did testify that Social Security Numbers "certainly should not be for sale on the Net."
What They Said
(Links to Prepared Statements
of Witnesses in the Judiciary
Committee Web Site in PDF.)
Jodie Bernstein, FTC
Jim Huse, Social Security Admin.
Beth Givins, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Steve Emmert, Lexis/Nexus
Stuart Pratt, Associated Credit Bureaus
Michelle Brown, Identity Theft Victim
Steve Emmert, of Lexis/Nexus, and Stuart Pratt, of Associated Credit Bureaus, both testified regarding the legitimate market for personal data, including social security numbers. Emmert testified that "the availability of individual reference services helps to reduce identity theft."
He also argued that many types of sales of Social Security Numbers should remain legal. He covered several examples, including: locating criminals and witnesses by law enforcement authorities, locating heirs, locating pension fund beneficiaries, locating victims of fraud schemes and environmental hazards, and tracking down parents who are delinquent in child support payments. He also said that banking, insurance, and database companies, such as Lexis/Nexus, ought to be exempt.
Sen. Feinstein offered to work with Emmert in crafting a bill that would meet their concerns, but prevent individuals from buying Social Security Numbers over the Internet.
Sen. Feinstein also conceded that she was having difficulty moving her legislation. Regarding S 2328, she lamented, "I doubt very much the Banking Committee is going to move the bill."
A letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. David Earl- Graef
Friday, January 9, 2009 4:41 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "David Earl-Graef"View contact details To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Orly please feel free to edit and use at your discretion . It is strong language but factual
To All Americans,
I am sorry to interrupt this discussion thread but this is extremely
important.
This is not about sore losers, this is not about race. This about the
very foundations of our Nation. It is not about fear of change. I for one do not fear change but
only fear change that is not given the careful consideration our
founding fathers would have afforded it.
This is about America and the ability of our military to defend her and possibly much more. As a US military officer, I am just beginning myself to see the potential problems that may be
facing us. Before you discard any of this information please take the time to verify on OFFICIAL US Government sources such as the site for our United States Supreme Court.
FACT: Chief Justice John G. Roberts has agreed to hear Bowen vs
Lightfoot. A case challenging the constitutional qualifications of
Barak H. Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be POTUS. Check the court Docket.
http://orgin.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Comment- If the Chief Justice did not think we have a problem he would NOT distribute this case let alone give it to the full court to read. He does not want to look dumb or waste the time of the court after all he is the Chief.
FACT: Congress did not listen and hear this very loud signal he sent
to them yesterday but it rang a warning shot through many of the United States Armed Forces
more like a loud bomb. If I heard it, I KNOW the Joint Chiefs of the Military heard it.
Fact: Unfortunately you will have to take this as true on its
merits. But I assure you The Joint Chiefs as military officers take the
constitution very seriously.
FACT: If only ONE of the Joint Chiefs of Staff balks we lose an
entire arm of our military ! He can not nor will not give the order
to mobilize the forces if he has a reason to question the validity of that order. In
fact he himself is duty bound to not obey this if not given by a "legal" President or at a minimum is conflicted as to the right thing to do !! The Oath states he will obey the lawful orders of those above him not ANY order. Chief Justice Roberts has as much as told them by distributing this case we may have a constitutional problem with Obama. So at this very moment our Military leaders are likely conflicted. Not a good thing.
*****The words of JOE BIDEN. He warned of an international crisis
soon and implied it would be of immense proportion soon after Obama took office may . ****** Have you
already forgotten ????? Have you been distracte by the economy. Did Biden know something ??? Has anybody bothered to ask him??
And he thinks Barak can handle it. Do you ??? Let Obam face down Putin without the Navy or maybe the
Air Force or maybe the Army or mayybe ALL of them to back him up. I suppose some of you out there
still believe in a Superman. Reality check. He was a comic book
character and Obama is not a Superman like some of you believe. He is not the messiah otherwise he would not be giving us doom and gloom for the economy. He would waive his hand and fix it. Please wake
up !!
We are not asking Obama for the moon only that he give us some
additional information to assure us he is who he says he is AND qualify under the Constitution and we in the military will do whatever he asks us to do to protect this country. This is what we do.
This is reasonable and prudent but Obama is refusing and fighting this with
everything and I mean everything in his power.
To my Fellow Officers and Enlisted who are required to lay their lives at the very feet of Liberty.
Do not despair but take good faith. Remember those who came before. He is not our President yet so you still have a right to raise concerns all the way to the Pentagon. Let the Officers in your command know that Justice Roberts has taken the first stand to insure the Constitution is followed. Let our Chief Justice know you support him and appreciate him for HIS courage valor to stand up for us. Call/ write your congressman. Pass this letter to every blog you can. Ask your family to do the same we are a mighty voice and it can be heard.
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "David Earl-Graef"
Orly please feel free to edit and use at your discretion . It is strong language but factual
To All Americans,
I am sorry to interrupt this discussion thread but this is extremely
important.
This is not about sore losers, this is not about race. This about the
very foundations of our Nation. It is not about fear of change. I for one do not fear change but
only fear change that is not given the careful consideration our
founding fathers would have afforded it.
This is about America and the ability of our military to defend her and possibly much more. As a US military officer, I am just beginning myself to see the potential problems that may be
facing us. Before you discard any of this information please take the time to verify on OFFICIAL US Government sources such as the site for our United States Supreme Court.
FACT: Chief Justice John G. Roberts has agreed to hear Bowen vs
Lightfoot. A case challenging the constitutional qualifications of
Barak H. Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be POTUS. Check the court Docket.
http://orgin.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Comment- If the Chief Justice did not think we have a problem he would NOT distribute this case let alone give it to the full court to read. He does not want to look dumb or waste the time of the court after all he is the Chief.
FACT: Congress did not listen and hear this very loud signal he sent
to them yesterday but it rang a warning shot through many of the United States Armed Forces
more like a loud bomb. If I heard it, I KNOW the Joint Chiefs of the Military heard it.
Fact: Unfortunately you will have to take this as true on its
merits. But I assure you The Joint Chiefs as military officers take the
constitution very seriously.
FACT: If only ONE of the Joint Chiefs of Staff balks we lose an
entire arm of our military ! He can not nor will not give the order
to mobilize the forces if he has a reason to question the validity of that order. In
fact he himself is duty bound to not obey this if not given by a "legal" President or at a minimum is conflicted as to the right thing to do !! The Oath states he will obey the lawful orders of those above him not ANY order. Chief Justice Roberts has as much as told them by distributing this case we may have a constitutional problem with Obama. So at this very moment our Military leaders are likely conflicted. Not a good thing.
*****The words of JOE BIDEN. He warned of an international crisis
soon and implied it would be of immense proportion soon after Obama took office may . ****** Have you
already forgotten ????? Have you been distracte by the economy. Did Biden know something ??? Has anybody bothered to ask him??
And he thinks Barak can handle it. Do you ??? Let Obam face down Putin without the Navy or maybe the
Air Force or maybe the Army or mayybe ALL of them to back him up. I suppose some of you out there
still believe in a Superman. Reality check. He was a comic book
character and Obama is not a Superman like some of you believe. He is not the messiah otherwise he would not be giving us doom and gloom for the economy. He would waive his hand and fix it. Please wake
up !!
We are not asking Obama for the moon only that he give us some
additional information to assure us he is who he says he is AND qualify under the Constitution and we in the military will do whatever he asks us to do to protect this country. This is what we do.
This is reasonable and prudent but Obama is refusing and fighting this with
everything and I mean everything in his power.
To my Fellow Officers and Enlisted who are required to lay their lives at the very feet of Liberty.
Do not despair but take good faith. Remember those who came before. He is not our President yet so you still have a right to raise concerns all the way to the Pentagon. Let the Officers in your command know that Justice Roberts has taken the first stand to insure the Constitution is followed. Let our Chief Justice know you support him and appreciate him for HIS courage valor to stand up for us. Call/ write your congressman. Pass this letter to every blog you can. Ask your family to do the same we are a mighty voice and it can be heard.
Need a follow up on Charles Payne
Does anyone know why Charles Payne (brother of Madelyn Payne Dunham) show amongst people with unclaimed properties in HI?
To: "Orly Taitz"Message contains attachmentscharlespayne.doc (139KB) No virus threat detected File: charlespayne.doc Download File
Hi, Orly! I'm not sure why I keep checking this site, but I started plugging in the names of all of BO's family members. His mom's already turned up something small. I was just surprised to see Charles Payne show up. I guess it's not such an unusual name... See attached. I don't mean to send you on a wild goose chase. Maybe something in the address or info will help you. Liz
To: "Orly Taitz"
Hi, Orly! I'm not sure why I keep checking this site, but I started plugging in the names of all of BO's family members. His mom's already turned up something small. I was just surprised to see Charles Payne show up. I guess it's not such an unusual name... See attached. I don't mean to send you on a wild goose chase. Maybe something in the address or info will help you. Liz
Zeituni Onyango
hi dr. orly, i did a search of zetuni onyango on switchboard.com and found two (2) lstings which i have copied and pasted below. hope this helps. keep up the good work and remember not to be outcome based. God bless you. billsouth boston, massachusetts
Find any unlisted number or address. Search by Maiden Name, Phone Number or SSN.
www.intelius.com
Found 2 Results for Zeituni Onyango in South Boston, MA < Prev 1 Next > (1-2 of 2)
NAME & CONTACT INFO
Zeituni P Onyango2 Bent Ct
Boston, MA 02127(617) 269-3341Add to Address Book | Map | Driving Directions
Remove Listing Find More Information for Zeituni P Onyango
Email and Unlisted Phone Lookup
Get Detailed Background Information
View Property & Area Information
View Social Network Profile
Zeituni Onyango111 Flaherty Way
Boston, MA 02127(617) 268-2003Add to Address Book | Map | Driving Direct
Find any unlisted number or address. Search by Maiden Name, Phone Number or SSN.
www.intelius.com
Found 2 Results for Zeituni Onyango in South Boston, MA < Prev 1 Next > (1-2 of 2)
NAME & CONTACT INFO
Zeituni P Onyango2 Bent Ct
Boston, MA 02127(617) 269-3341Add to Address Book | Map | Driving Directions
Remove Listing Find More Information for Zeituni P Onyango
Email and Unlisted Phone Lookup
Get Detailed Background Information
View Property & Area Information
View Social Network Profile
Zeituni Onyango111 Flaherty Way
Boston, MA 02127(617) 268-2003Add to Address Book | Map | Driving Direct
From a reader
Anonymous has commented on http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-info-on-535-40-8522.html
The message left:
\r
Orly has NOT overstepped ANY boundaries. It is Obama who has overstepped boundaries by taking the office of POTUS when he knows he is ineligible and in violation of our Constitution. Where are HIS MORAL and ETHICAL obligations? Where are HIS LOYALTIES? He has no respect for our laws, for our Constitution. He should have thought less about himself, his desires, his ego, and instead should have supported an ELIGIBLE democratic candidate for POTUS. Regardless of what Obama's vault bc says, whether it says he was born in Hawaii or on the moon, he is ALREADY INELIGIBLE because his father was not a US citizen. The Framers of our Constitution, Art II, said that ONLY a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN may be POTUS. Obama is not a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, one must be born on U.S. soil, to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens. This has to do with having comple! te loyalty and allegiance to our Country. Read the framers notes, letters, intent, in writing our Constitution - there is no question -- Obama knows this to be true, that is why he is so evasive regarding his records. Don't you want a President who upholds our Constitution? \r
Obama has divided loyalties to other countries, including Kenya and Indonesia
The message left:
\r
Orly has NOT overstepped ANY boundaries. It is Obama who has overstepped boundaries by taking the office of POTUS when he knows he is ineligible and in violation of our Constitution. Where are HIS MORAL and ETHICAL obligations? Where are HIS LOYALTIES? He has no respect for our laws, for our Constitution. He should have thought less about himself, his desires, his ego, and instead should have supported an ELIGIBLE democratic candidate for POTUS. Regardless of what Obama's vault bc says, whether it says he was born in Hawaii or on the moon, he is ALREADY INELIGIBLE because his father was not a US citizen. The Framers of our Constitution, Art II, said that ONLY a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN may be POTUS. Obama is not a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, one must be born on U.S. soil, to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens. This has to do with having comple! te loyalty and allegiance to our Country. Read the framers notes, letters, intent, in writing our Constitution - there is no question -- Obama knows this to be true, that is why he is so evasive regarding his records. Don't you want a President who upholds our Constitution? \r
Obama has divided loyalties to other countries, including Kenya and Indonesia
zaba free people search
January 10, 2009
Hello, Dr. Taitz,
Thank you for your incredibly large amount of work on exposing the fraud Obama.
I noticed that you are looking all over the nation for people. ZabaSearch is a fairly good free people search engine and may be of some help to you.
Here is the link information from Google:
Free People Search by ZabaSearch!
Honestly free people search. All US postal addresses & telephone numbers revealed free. Three-times more listings than white pages phone directory.
www.zabasearch.com/ - 16k - Cached - Similar pagesAdvanced Search
Searches
Message Archive
Top 25 Names Searched Today Your Current Location
ZabaSphere Login
50 Most Recent Connections in ...
More results from zabasearch.com »
Respectfully,
Ron Carlson
Hello, Dr. Taitz,
Thank you for your incredibly large amount of work on exposing the fraud Obama.
I noticed that you are looking all over the nation for people. ZabaSearch is a fairly good free people search engine and may be of some help to you.
Here is the link information from Google:
Free People Search by ZabaSearch!
Honestly free people search. All US postal addresses & telephone numbers revealed free. Three-times more listings than white pages phone directory.
www.zabasearch.com/ - 16k - Cached - Similar pagesAdvanced Search
Searches
Message Archive
Top 25 Names Searched Today Your Current Location
ZabaSphere Login
50 Most Recent Connections in ...
More results from zabasearch.com »
Respectfully,
Ron Carlson
Need help from FBI, US att. office and IRS on this one
Dear Dr. Taitz,Look at this:http://gisims2.miamidade.gov/myhome/propmap.asp You posted addresses in Florida, one for Barack Obama in Dade County at 123 South Drive, 33166. Your search through a public address database showed No Results Found, but when the same address is searched through the Dade County Auditor's website, 13 ADDRESSES ARE FOUND, each property has a parcel number, meaning, the government shows a record of some real property there. Notice that a search for 123 South :Drive, 33166 leads you to many properties, none of which has the address 123 South Drive 33166. Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
1 Folio: 0531190100130
Owner: OSCAR VIZCAYA
Address: 90 SOUTH DR
2 Folio: 0531190100060
Owner: THOMAS A MCMANUS
Address: 85 SOUTH DR
3 Folio: 0531190130690
Owner: CARLOS A CORDERI &
Address: 98 DELEON DR
4 Folio: 0531190130740
Owner: ROBERT A CALVERT JR &W RHONDA M
Address: 101 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
5 Folio: 0531190100480
Owner: DAVID E EKLUND
Address: 100 SOUTH DR
6 Folio: 0531190130790
Owner: JORGE NIEVES &W MORAIMA
Address: 120 SOUTH DR
7 Folio: 0531190130680
Owner: HERMINIO GARCIA ESTRADA &W IVETTE
Address: 114 DELEON DR
8 Folio: 0531190100330
Owner: ROBERT A CALVERT JR &W RHONDA M
Address: 117 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
13 Folio: 0531190130720
Owner: JOSE A GONZALEZ &W EVELYN
Address: 149 SOUTH DR
These could be illegals who have bogus SSN assigned to them and even show contributions to DNC. It appears to be a good way to pad the DNC donor list by attaching names to stolen SSN's and assigning addresses to those names. In some cases, like here in Dade County, it appears that these are real properties under the 123 South address. But none of the actual addresses are 123 South, but they are filed in a folder marked 123 South. I hope you read my report from Columbus, OH, because I found the same thing happening for the address 123 Main Street, Columbus 43207. All it would take is one or two employees in any particular government seat where a supervisor oo even elected official would agree to look the other way. This could be a way of laundering foreign money back into the system that is directed to the DNC as a campaign contribution. I'd like to know, who are all these Dade County people? I suspect they are innocent bystanders, just like Mrs. Albritkson, who has no idea their personal information is being tampered with. And/or - Is all this related to the "sub-prime loan meltdown"? How does this relate to the list of people Barney Frank made bad loans to through Fannie and Freddie? Are these people who (possibly) couldn't pay their mortgages and yet were listed as people who donated to the DNC? Is the mortgage collapse a paper chase, not linked to real property? Are the folks who are "losing their homes" somehow linked to money being raised for the DNC? Hephzibah
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
1 Folio: 0531190100130
Owner: OSCAR VIZCAYA
Address: 90 SOUTH DR
2 Folio: 0531190100060
Owner: THOMAS A MCMANUS
Address: 85 SOUTH DR
3 Folio: 0531190130690
Owner: CARLOS A CORDERI &
Address: 98 DELEON DR
4 Folio: 0531190130740
Owner: ROBERT A CALVERT JR &W RHONDA M
Address: 101 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
5 Folio: 0531190100480
Owner: DAVID E EKLUND
Address: 100 SOUTH DR
6 Folio: 0531190130790
Owner: JORGE NIEVES &W MORAIMA
Address: 120 SOUTH DR
7 Folio: 0531190130680
Owner: HERMINIO GARCIA ESTRADA &W IVETTE
Address: 114 DELEON DR
8 Folio: 0531190100330
Owner: ROBERT A CALVERT JR &W RHONDA M
Address: 117 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
9 Folio: 0531190130730
Owner: MERCEDES CARRILLO
Address: 125 SOUTH DR
10 Folio: 0531190130600
Owner: FRANCISCO RAMIREZ &W VERONIQUE
Address: 130 DE LEON DR
11 Folio: 0531190100450
Owner: DORIS E BOIESEN
Address: 144 SOUTH DR
12 Folio: 0531190100340
Owner: MANUEL LLORENS &W CARIDAD
Address: 135 SOUTH DR
Search Results: No match found for Address:123 south 33166
Other possible matches:
Click on Folio to select property.
13 Folio: 0531190130720
Owner: JOSE A GONZALEZ &W EVELYN
Address: 149 SOUTH DR
These could be illegals who have bogus SSN assigned to them and even show contributions to DNC. It appears to be a good way to pad the DNC donor list by attaching names to stolen SSN's and assigning addresses to those names. In some cases, like here in Dade County, it appears that these are real properties under the 123 South address. But none of the actual addresses are 123 South, but they are filed in a folder marked 123 South. I hope you read my report from Columbus, OH, because I found the same thing happening for the address 123 Main Street, Columbus 43207. All it would take is one or two employees in any particular government seat where a supervisor oo even elected official would agree to look the other way. This could be a way of laundering foreign money back into the system that is directed to the DNC as a campaign contribution. I'd like to know, who are all these Dade County people? I suspect they are innocent bystanders, just like Mrs. Albritkson, who has no idea their personal information is being tampered with. And/or - Is all this related to the "sub-prime loan meltdown"? How does this relate to the list of people Barney Frank made bad loans to through Fannie and Freddie? Are these people who (possibly) couldn't pay their mortgages and yet were listed as people who donated to the DNC? Is the mortgage collapse a paper chase, not linked to real property? Are the folks who are "losing their homes" somehow linked to money being raised for the DNC? Hephzibah
15,864 readers visited our blog yesterday
Close to 16, ooo visited the blog yesterday,(we are running close to half a million readers per month) I have currently nearly 14,356 e-mails. I appreciate all the support, but it simply extremely hard for me to answer so many e-mails. I wonder if there are a couple of ladies that live in Orange county, CA that can come on Monday to my office and help me go through the e-mails and put together pieces of the puzzle, put together a whole picture. Even barely sleeping I can't process all the info.
Orly
Orly
Friday, January 9, 2009
Who entered those adddresses in the National databases and why?
I received this info from the private investigator, Mr. Neal Sankey. Again, somebody has entered into the National databases Lexis Naxus and Choice Point all of these addresses in relation with Barack Obama. Please help me track down and find out, who entered all of these addresses and why.
No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Palm Beach County http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/GeneralSearch/GeneralSearch.aspx
Name - OBAMA, BARACK
Street Address - 15 A 1A
City, State, Zip - MANALAPAN FL 33462
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Jan 08 - May 08
*********************************************No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Brevard County http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/real_search.asp?SearchBy=Owner
Name - OBAMA, BARACK
Gender - Male
Street Address - APPLE ST
City, State, Zip - MELBOURNE FL 32940
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 762-41-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Oct 08 - Dec 08 ************************************************* No record found by searching name - address search unavailable - Miami-Dade County http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/public-records/pubsearch.asp
Name - OBAMA, BARAK
Gender - Male
Street Address - 123 SOUTH DR
City, State, Zip - MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166-5921
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 606-34-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Aug 08 - Dec 08 ********************************************************* No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Palm Beach County http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/GeneralSearch/GeneralSearch.aspx Name - OBAMA, BARAKE
Street Address - 1313 LANE
City, State, Zip - BOCA RATON FL 33433
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 123-45-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Feb 08 - Aug 08 ***************************************************** No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - St Lucie County http://www.paslc.org/PP_main.asp Name - OBAMA, BARROK
Street Address - 363 NOTLEM ST
City, State, Zip - FORT PIERCE FL 34982-7358
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Aug 08 - Nov 08 **************************************************No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Orange County http://www.ocpafl.org/searches/address_form.html Name - OBAMA, BARRY
Gender - Male
Street Address - 5003 OAK HILL DR
City, State, Zip - WINTER PARK FL 32792-9253
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Jun 08
*************************************************** No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - St Johns County http://www.sjcpa.us/App/SJCPAWeb_Search.cfm Name - OBAMA, BORAK
Street Address - 3112 1 2 ST
City, State, Zip - SAINT AUGUSTINE FL 32080
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 213-47-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Mar 08 - Dec 08
No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Palm Beach County http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/GeneralSearch/GeneralSearch.aspx
Name - OBAMA, BARACK
Street Address - 15 A 1A
City, State, Zip - MANALAPAN FL 33462
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Jan 08 - May 08
*********************************************No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Brevard County http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.com/asp/real_search.asp?SearchBy=Owner
Name - OBAMA, BARACK
Gender - Male
Street Address - APPLE ST
City, State, Zip - MELBOURNE FL 32940
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 762-41-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Oct 08 - Dec 08 ************************************************* No record found by searching name - address search unavailable - Miami-Dade County http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/public-records/pubsearch.asp
Name - OBAMA, BARAK
Gender - Male
Street Address - 123 SOUTH DR
City, State, Zip - MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166-5921
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 606-34-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Aug 08 - Dec 08 ********************************************************* No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Palm Beach County http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/GeneralSearch/GeneralSearch.aspx Name - OBAMA, BARAKE
Street Address - 1313 LANE
City, State, Zip - BOCA RATON FL 33433
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 123-45-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Feb 08 - Aug 08 ***************************************************** No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - St Lucie County http://www.paslc.org/PP_main.asp Name - OBAMA, BARROK
Street Address - 363 NOTLEM ST
City, State, Zip - FORT PIERCE FL 34982-7358
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Aug 08 - Nov 08 **************************************************No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - Orange County http://www.ocpafl.org/searches/address_form.html Name - OBAMA, BARRY
Gender - Male
Street Address - 5003 OAK HILL DR
City, State, Zip - WINTER PARK FL 32792-9253
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security -
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Jun 08
*************************************************** No record found - invalid address - results of name search no record - St Johns County http://www.sjcpa.us/App/SJCPAWeb_Search.cfm Name - OBAMA, BORAK
Street Address - 3112 1 2 ST
City, State, Zip - SAINT AUGUSTINE FL 32080
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 213-47-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Mar 08 - Dec 08
More info on 535-40-8522
I am trying to solve the mystery of this social security number. I received information from a private investigator that the social security number 535-40-8522 was entered together with the name of Phyllis Albriktsen into the Lexis-Nexus and Choice Point database, that is owned by Cisco. I was told that Cisco was purchased by a Chinese company (I don't have the name). I called Ms. Phyllis Albriktsen at 425-337-1098, she said that it is not her ss number, she didn't know who did it.
I need help from people that do tech support for Lexis- Nexus, ChoicePoint and Cisco. I need to track a person, that is entering this information and I need to know why he or she is doing it. If you work for one of these companies and can help tracing people that are entering this information,please call 949-683-5411 or e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com, mark "Re trace ss"
Orly
I need help from people that do tech support for Lexis- Nexus, ChoicePoint and Cisco. I need to track a person, that is entering this information and I need to know why he or she is doing it. If you work for one of these companies and can help tracing people that are entering this information,please call 949-683-5411 or e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com, mark "Re trace ss"
Orly
Don't believe malicious rumors, my case was not dismissed, Chief justice referred it to the full court
Please, don't believe malicious rumors, somebody is spreading around a malicious rumor, stating that my case Lightfoot v Bowen was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the US. This is absolutely not true, see the copy of the docket below. On January 7 The Chief Justice John Roberts has referred my application to the full court and it will be heard in a conference on Jan 23rd. Please write the Supreme Court and ask them to move the conference for an earlier date, before the inauguration. If 4 out of 9 judges vote to grant the petition, it will go to the next stage -oral argument. If 5 out of 9 vote for the petition, we win the case. I hope that it will go to the oral argument, since the whole country needs to know who this person is, where was he born, what is his citizenship.
We can't have a fraud and an usurper in the White House.
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
We can't have a fraud and an usurper in the White House.
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
More on Stanley Ann Dunham death certificate
Please see that death certificates would have a letter V, if they are verified and P (Proof) if actual death certificate if observed. On Obama's mother there is no V or P- it was not verified and the actual death certificate signed by a doctor and the hospital was not presented tp the social security administration.
So, we know this woman, Stanley Ann Dunham used the social security number that belonged to smbd else and the death was never verified
Please forward thjis to all the media, government, FBI, CIA, secret service, US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Att Gen of US Mike Mukasey and all of the att Gen of all the states, police, sheriffs, immigration.
Orly
Social Security Death Index Search Results
83,122,831 Records
last updated on 11-18-2008 The key to your research
Join Ancestry.com Today!
The most full-featured SSDI search engine on the internet
Field Value Records Results
SSN 535-40-8522 1
Last Name DUNHAM Scanned
First Name STANLEY Scanned
Middle Name A Scanned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viewing 1-1 of 1
Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools Order
Record?
STANLEY A DUNHAM 29 Nov 1942 07 Nov 1995 96826 (Honolulu, Honolulu, HI) (none specified) 535-40-8522 Washington SS-5 Letter
Add Post-em
View Post-em (1)
Search Ancestry.com
Viewing 1-1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.
So, we know this woman, Stanley Ann Dunham used the social security number that belonged to smbd else and the death was never verified
Please forward thjis to all the media, government, FBI, CIA, secret service, US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Att Gen of US Mike Mukasey and all of the att Gen of all the states, police, sheriffs, immigration.
Orly
Social Security Death Index Search Results
83,122,831 Records
last updated on 11-18-2008 The key to your research
Join Ancestry.com Today!
The most full-featured SSDI search engine on the internet
Field Value Records Results
SSN 535-40-8522 1
Last Name DUNHAM Scanned
First Name STANLEY Scanned
Middle Name A Scanned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viewing 1-1 of 1
Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools Order
Record?
STANLEY A DUNHAM 29 Nov 1942 07 Nov 1995 96826 (Honolulu, Honolulu, HI) (none specified) 535-40-8522 Washington SS-5 Letter
Add Post-em
View Post-em (1)
Search Ancestry.com
Viewing 1-1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.
AP-Pinnacle of corruption in the media
Pinnacle of corruption in the media
One of the patriots has forwarded to me an AP report, stating that judge Souter has denied a stay in relation to Barack Hussein Obama and stated that all of such requests were denied. This corrupt AP never reported that on 01.07.09. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has distributed my case to be heard at the full conference of the Supreme Court.
One of the patriots has forwarded to me an AP report, stating that judge Souter has denied a stay in relation to Barack Hussein Obama and stated that all of such requests were denied. This corrupt AP never reported that on 01.07.09. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has distributed my case to be heard at the full conference of the Supreme Court.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/look-at-this-huge-list-of-properties.html
Look at this huge list of properties under Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama
*********************************************************************************************************
Name - OBAMA, BARRAK
Street Address - 611 N CAPITOL AVE
City, State, Zip - INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-1205
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 264-87-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Nov 08 - Dec 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://goexcelglobal.com/americanindia.doc
ADDRESS SEARCH RESULTS
Address Parcel Township Owner Name
611 N CAPITOL AV 1078968 Center VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF INDIA
1-1 of 1 Record(s)
* The following parameters were used for this search: street-name=Capital, street-direction=% , street-number=611, street-suffix=Av, username=nobodySearch Date: 01/07/2009 18:53:37 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF INDIANA (VOAIN.org)
the HOPEFUND INC.
Obama
Same fund Norman Hsu was bundling for.
Google Search Return:
The H.O.P.E. Team
7, Main Email Address, mellison@voain.org. 8, Web Site Address, www.voain.org ... 12, Contact's Email Address, rfranklin@voain.org ...thehopeteam.com/Organizations/VolunteersofAmericaofIndiana.htm - 14k -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder as to who Norman Hsu was:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/12.pdf
Letter from Steven R. Ross and Mark J. MacDougall
to The Honorable Fred Thompson,
September 17, 1997. (Ex. 1).
Ted Sioeng, His Family, and His Business Interests
BIG Excerpt:
These checks were written on an account held jointly in the names of Sundari, Sandra, and Laureen Elnitiarta.
114/16/94 Sioeng San Wong Friends of Michael Woo $ 1,000
9/28/94 Jessica Elnitiarta Matt Fong for Treasurer $ 2,000
3/11/95 Sioeng San Wong Friends of Norman Hsu $ 7,500
3/25/95 Sioeng San Wong Comm. to Elect Miu Mey Chang $ 1,500
4/20/95 Sioeng San Wong Matt Fong for State Treasurer $ 20,000
4/28/95 Sioeng San Wong Matt Fong $ 30,000
7/18/95 Panda Industries, Inc. National Policy Forum $ 50,000
12/14/95 Panda Estates Investment Matt Fong for State Treasurer $ 50,000
2/15/96 Su/Sa/La Elnitiarta Dr. Daniel Wong $ 5,000
BIG Excerpt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/09/01/norman-hsu-and-dnc-fundraisers.aspx
Campaign contributions
Since 2004, other than Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu has contributed to or raised funds for the following:[6][9]
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)[10]
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)[10]
Sen. Robert Casey (D-Penn.)[10]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.)[11]
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)[11][12]
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa)[11]
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) Donated $1,000 to charity.[13]
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)[10]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.)[10]
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)[10]
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)[11]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)[11]
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.)[10][14]
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)[10]
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)[10]; HOPEFUND[10]
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)[11]
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)[11]
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)[11]
Rep. Joseph Sestak (D-Penn.)[11] Donated $1,000 to chairty.[15]
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)[10][16]
Sen. Mark E. Udall (D-Co.)[11]
Former presidential candidate Tom Vilsack[11]
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.)
Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D-Penn.)[17]
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.)[18]
Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.)[19]
Andrew Cuomo for Attorney General (D-N.Y.)[20]
Thomas Allen (D-Me.) for Senate[11]
Al Franken (D-Minn.) for Senate[11] Donated $2,600 to charity.[21]
David Wayne Loebsack (D-Iowa) for Congress[11]
Committee for a Democratic Majority[11]
Democratic Campaign Committee of Philadelphia[22]
Democratic Executive Committee of Florida[10]
Democratic National Committee Services[10]
Democratic Party of Wisconsin[10]
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee[11][10]
New York State Committee of the Working Families Party[11]
New York State Democratic Committee[23]
New York State Democratic Party[24]
Tennessee Democratic Party[11]
EMILY's List[10]
Preschool for All[25]
Pro-Issue 2 / Ohio Citizen Action / 2006[26]
Searchlight Leadership Fund[11] (operated by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.))
Look at this huge list of properties under Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama
*********************************************************************************************************
Name - OBAMA, BARRAK
Street Address - 611 N CAPITOL AVE
City, State, Zip - INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-1205
Probable Current Address - No
Telephone -
Telephone Accountholder -
Social Security - 264-87-xxxx
Age -
Date of Birth -
Deceased - No
Date Record Verified - Nov 08 - Dec 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://goexcelglobal.com/americanindia.doc
ADDRESS SEARCH RESULTS
Address Parcel Township Owner Name
611 N CAPITOL AV 1078968 Center VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF INDIA
1-1 of 1 Record(s)
* The following parameters were used for this search: street-name=Capital, street-direction=% , street-number=611, street-suffix=Av, username=nobodySearch Date: 01/07/2009 18:53:37 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF INDIANA (VOAIN.org)
the HOPEFUND INC.
Obama
Same fund Norman Hsu was bundling for.
Google Search Return:
The H.O.P.E. Team
7, Main Email Address, mellison@voain.org. 8, Web Site Address, www.voain.org ... 12, Contact's Email Address, rfranklin@voain.org ...thehopeteam.com/Organizations/VolunteersofAmericaofIndiana.htm - 14k -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder as to who Norman Hsu was:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/12.pdf
Letter from Steven R. Ross and Mark J. MacDougall
to The Honorable Fred Thompson,
September 17, 1997. (Ex. 1).
Ted Sioeng, His Family, and His Business Interests
BIG Excerpt:
These checks were written on an account held jointly in the names of Sundari, Sandra, and Laureen Elnitiarta.
114/16/94 Sioeng San Wong Friends of Michael Woo $ 1,000
9/28/94 Jessica Elnitiarta Matt Fong for Treasurer $ 2,000
3/11/95 Sioeng San Wong Friends of Norman Hsu $ 7,500
3/25/95 Sioeng San Wong Comm. to Elect Miu Mey Chang $ 1,500
4/20/95 Sioeng San Wong Matt Fong for State Treasurer $ 20,000
4/28/95 Sioeng San Wong Matt Fong $ 30,000
7/18/95 Panda Industries, Inc. National Policy Forum $ 50,000
12/14/95 Panda Estates Investment Matt Fong for State Treasurer $ 50,000
2/15/96 Su/Sa/La Elnitiarta Dr. Daniel Wong $ 5,000
BIG Excerpt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/09/01/norman-hsu-and-dnc-fundraisers.aspx
Campaign contributions
Since 2004, other than Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu has contributed to or raised funds for the following:[6][9]
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)[10]
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)[10]
Sen. Robert Casey (D-Penn.)[10]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.)[11]
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)[11][12]
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa)[11]
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) Donated $1,000 to charity.[13]
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)[10]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.)[10]
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)[10]
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)[11]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)[11]
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.)[10][14]
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)[10]
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)[10]; HOPEFUND[10]
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)[11]
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)[11]
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)[11]
Rep. Joseph Sestak (D-Penn.)[11] Donated $1,000 to chairty.[15]
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)[10][16]
Sen. Mark E. Udall (D-Co.)[11]
Former presidential candidate Tom Vilsack[11]
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.)
Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D-Penn.)[17]
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.)[18]
Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.)[19]
Andrew Cuomo for Attorney General (D-N.Y.)[20]
Thomas Allen (D-Me.) for Senate[11]
Al Franken (D-Minn.) for Senate[11] Donated $2,600 to charity.[21]
David Wayne Loebsack (D-Iowa) for Congress[11]
Committee for a Democratic Majority[11]
Democratic Campaign Committee of Philadelphia[22]
Democratic Executive Committee of Florida[10]
Democratic National Committee Services[10]
Democratic Party of Wisconsin[10]
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee[11][10]
New York State Committee of the Working Families Party[11]
New York State Democratic Committee[23]
New York State Democratic Party[24]
Tennessee Democratic Party[11]
EMILY's List[10]
Preschool for All[25]
Pro-Issue 2 / Ohio Citizen Action / 2006[26]
Searchlight Leadership Fund[11] (operated by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.))
a letter from a reader, Carol
Flag this messageThe DNC and the RICO ActWednesday, January 7, 2009 10:51 PM
From: "carol hugenberg"View contact details To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, lawyer@stephenpidgeon.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Accidentally came upon this act, the RICO Act.
It seems to fit the criminal behavior of the DNC, they are covering up for an illegal alien. fraudulently seeking the Presidency, using their "past good name" to create a trust in an organization who had never before snuck in an immigrant candidate and so then took advantage and betrayed that trust, they brought in money from everywhere around the world, and are using court systems and DNC party members throughout the States and in Congress to cover up their tracks, not providing documentation to citizens when contacting the party for documentation on their candidate, quibbling in courts to protect a simple birth certificate, controlling and manipulating the media, intimidating voters.
The corruption and illegal activities of the DNC really seem to fit this RICO Act. They aided and abetted a common criminal, an illegal immigrant, to hide his past and seek the White House under their cover, in broad daylight.
We the People versus The DNC.
From: "carol hugenberg"
Accidentally came upon this act, the RICO Act.
It seems to fit the criminal behavior of the DNC, they are covering up for an illegal alien. fraudulently seeking the Presidency, using their "past good name" to create a trust in an organization who had never before snuck in an immigrant candidate and so then took advantage and betrayed that trust, they brought in money from everywhere around the world, and are using court systems and DNC party members throughout the States and in Congress to cover up their tracks, not providing documentation to citizens when contacting the party for documentation on their candidate, quibbling in courts to protect a simple birth certificate, controlling and manipulating the media, intimidating voters.
The corruption and illegal activities of the DNC really seem to fit this RICO Act. They aided and abetted a common criminal, an illegal immigrant, to hide his past and seek the White House under their cover, in broad daylight.
We the People versus The DNC.
14,171 readers visited our blog today, I'll try to answer the questions and clarify
Over 14,000 visited the blog today, it means we are getting close to half a million citizens visiting the blog within a month. This is extremely important in order to bring awareness to the public. One down side, is that I need to answer a huge number of e-mails and phone calls, I am doing my best, I appreciate everybody's support and I apologise in that I cannot answer all the questions.
First in re. to military case. We were planning to file today in GA. A local attorney that was supposed to co-sign the papers has some personal problems. We need a local attorney in GA. Please contact me if you know of a GA attorney that can co-sign simply for the purpose of receipt of the documents from the court.
Now to the Supreme Court. I would like to explain that we didn't win the war yet. This is only a battle, but it is important. A number of people asked to explain, how is it different from previous cases. As you know, I referred the case to Chief Justice Roberts and he had two options: to deny or to distribute it to be heard by all 9 judges in a conference. He has chosen to refer the case to be heard at a conference of all 9 judges. Decision of the Chief Justice is important, as it is believed that a number of justices on the court follow his lead, media and legislature listen to what he has to say.
What about the date? From what I understand the conferences are scheduled every week once a week. Berg's case is scheduled for 9Th and 16s. The next available date was a week later, the 23rd and that's when the case was scheduled. I will see what happens tomorrow with the certification of the electoral vote. If one congressman and one senator objects, then both Berg's and my cases will become moot and the issue will be probably resolved in Congress and Senate. In case the electoral vote is confirmed, then I will send another letter to the Supreme Court, asking to move my case to an earlier conference on the 16Th. I need to explain that even if I am successful in moving it to the 16Th, it is not the final disposition of the case. After the case is heard at the conference by all 9 Justices, they vote. If 4 out of 9 vote for the case, they schedule the next step, the oral argument. If 5 out of 9 vote for the case at the oral argument, the case is won. The court needs to give the other party notice to prepare for the oral argument, which means that most likely even Berg's case that was scheduled for the 9Th and 16Th will not be heard before the inauguration. Even if it is heard before the inauguration, probably there will not be a final decision by the court before the inauguration. Most likely the case will be decided after the inauguration. Keep in mind Nixon was involved in Watergate before the election, however the decision of the Supreme Court to hand over the tapes came down after the election and Nixon was forced to resign. We have to look positively, we have to start with the premise that we have to win and work as hard as possible to achieve this goal. Fraud cannot prevail. We hope the decision will come before the inauguration, but if not, we will keep fighting until we win.
I got an email from one attorney, that is working on this case, saying that he didn't understand the message, that he understood it literally and I need to explain.( I will not post the name of this attorney). It seemed strange to me, that over 14,000 people: attorneys and lay people understood the message and this one attorney, working on the case didn't understand it, but let me explain. The Supreme Court usually does not provide explanations, why it acts in a certain way and at a certain time. Attorneys, analysts and lay people review the decisions of the Supreme court within the frame of what is happenings in legal and political arena in general and come up with analysis, as to what it means. For example, why did the court sit on Berg's case for two months and scheduled it the last moment before the inauguration with no time for oral argument and decision? Why did they schedule the actual case for the 9Th and it's more urgent part, the injunctive relief for a later date, the 16Th? A number of editorials were written, saying that by scheduling the case at a certain time the court is sending a message.
Similarly, what does it mean, that Chief Justice Roberts renders his decision one day before the certification of the electoral vote? If he were to deny it, he would send a clear message to Congress and Senate: "There is no merit in the case, go ahead and certify the vote." When he did not deny the case, but rather sent it to all 9 Justices to be heard at the conference, he is sending an opposite message. I hope this attorney and his assistant understood what I am saying.
Yet another question was asked, "could it mean, that by deciding to hear the case at the conference, Chief Justice Roberts simply wants to prevent me from shopping around and going to other Justices?" Theoretically everything is possible. Theoretically one can say that all 3 branches of our government were hypnotised and that is the reason why they didn't hear anything until now and don't want to hear anythinhg in the future. I hope this is not the case. Justices of the Supreme Court don't live in a vacuum. They surely read the AOL poll, showing that the majority of the public wants this issue investigated. They know that I filed the Keys case together with another attorney. They know that numerous members of the military have signed up to be represented as plaintiffs by me. They know that I will be coming to Supreme Court time and again demanding answers. They know that the number of my supporters is growing exponentially. I believe Chief Justice Roberts scheduled my case a week after Bergs for a reason. If the full Supreme Court does not rule favorably on Berg's case, my case will serve as an assurance policy aweek later. Why do I say that?
1. First of all my case does not have a problem of standing. My client Gail Lightfoot was a vice presidential candidate on the ballot. Four of my clients are electors, five out of seven have served in the military and some of them are subject to recall. They might be facing a charge of treason for following the orders of Commander in Chief who is not legitimate and who is loyal to another Sovereignty.
2. In my case the Chief Justice of the lower Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of California has denied the petition by writing only one word "Denied", therefor the Justices of the Supreme Court of the US are free to rule on my pleadings. In all the prior cases there were specific negative decisions written by lower courts that had to be overcome.
3. My case provides not only the argument of Kenya and Indonesia, but also Donofrio's argument, definitions of Natural born citizen, as it was when the Constitution was adopted, namely that one is a natural born citizen if one is born in the country to parents that are citizens. This definition by Emerich De Vattel was later echoed by John Jay and John A Bingham and resonated in Minor and Elg cases.
4. My case has remarkable precedents of Larry Holmes and Eldridge Cleaver, that were removed from the ballot by previous Secretaries of State of Ca, because they did not qualify. There birth certificate (original one) showed them younger then 35 y.o.
5. My State electors didn't have necessary certificates of electors.
6. Lastly, don't forget the dead elector, what are they going to do about that, remove her out of the grave and resuscitate?
At the end of the day all I can do is hope for the best. God's ways are unknown and the wheels of Justice turn slowly. I hope my case will be heard on the merit during the oral argument. I am not telling the court to decide in my favor, I am saying that all of these arguments have to be heard by each and every American citizen. The Supreme Court owes the American people an answer, who is this man, is he a citizen of Indonesia? Kenya? Great Britain? What is his legal name? Do we live in a Communist country or a dictatorship where the laws are never enforced? Or do we live in a country, where the courts decide based on the Constitution? The courts hear only one side of the story from our main stream media. It is up to you if the Justices hear your side of the story.
I hope I provided an answer that is comprehensive enough
Good night and God Bless
Orly
First in re. to military case. We were planning to file today in GA. A local attorney that was supposed to co-sign the papers has some personal problems. We need a local attorney in GA. Please contact me if you know of a GA attorney that can co-sign simply for the purpose of receipt of the documents from the court.
Now to the Supreme Court. I would like to explain that we didn't win the war yet. This is only a battle, but it is important. A number of people asked to explain, how is it different from previous cases. As you know, I referred the case to Chief Justice Roberts and he had two options: to deny or to distribute it to be heard by all 9 judges in a conference. He has chosen to refer the case to be heard at a conference of all 9 judges. Decision of the Chief Justice is important, as it is believed that a number of justices on the court follow his lead, media and legislature listen to what he has to say.
What about the date? From what I understand the conferences are scheduled every week once a week. Berg's case is scheduled for 9Th and 16s. The next available date was a week later, the 23rd and that's when the case was scheduled. I will see what happens tomorrow with the certification of the electoral vote. If one congressman and one senator objects, then both Berg's and my cases will become moot and the issue will be probably resolved in Congress and Senate. In case the electoral vote is confirmed, then I will send another letter to the Supreme Court, asking to move my case to an earlier conference on the 16Th. I need to explain that even if I am successful in moving it to the 16Th, it is not the final disposition of the case. After the case is heard at the conference by all 9 Justices, they vote. If 4 out of 9 vote for the case, they schedule the next step, the oral argument. If 5 out of 9 vote for the case at the oral argument, the case is won. The court needs to give the other party notice to prepare for the oral argument, which means that most likely even Berg's case that was scheduled for the 9Th and 16Th will not be heard before the inauguration. Even if it is heard before the inauguration, probably there will not be a final decision by the court before the inauguration. Most likely the case will be decided after the inauguration. Keep in mind Nixon was involved in Watergate before the election, however the decision of the Supreme Court to hand over the tapes came down after the election and Nixon was forced to resign. We have to look positively, we have to start with the premise that we have to win and work as hard as possible to achieve this goal. Fraud cannot prevail. We hope the decision will come before the inauguration, but if not, we will keep fighting until we win.
I got an email from one attorney, that is working on this case, saying that he didn't understand the message, that he understood it literally and I need to explain.( I will not post the name of this attorney). It seemed strange to me, that over 14,000 people: attorneys and lay people understood the message and this one attorney, working on the case didn't understand it, but let me explain. The Supreme Court usually does not provide explanations, why it acts in a certain way and at a certain time. Attorneys, analysts and lay people review the decisions of the Supreme court within the frame of what is happenings in legal and political arena in general and come up with analysis, as to what it means. For example, why did the court sit on Berg's case for two months and scheduled it the last moment before the inauguration with no time for oral argument and decision? Why did they schedule the actual case for the 9Th and it's more urgent part, the injunctive relief for a later date, the 16Th? A number of editorials were written, saying that by scheduling the case at a certain time the court is sending a message.
Similarly, what does it mean, that Chief Justice Roberts renders his decision one day before the certification of the electoral vote? If he were to deny it, he would send a clear message to Congress and Senate: "There is no merit in the case, go ahead and certify the vote." When he did not deny the case, but rather sent it to all 9 Justices to be heard at the conference, he is sending an opposite message. I hope this attorney and his assistant understood what I am saying.
Yet another question was asked, "could it mean, that by deciding to hear the case at the conference, Chief Justice Roberts simply wants to prevent me from shopping around and going to other Justices?" Theoretically everything is possible. Theoretically one can say that all 3 branches of our government were hypnotised and that is the reason why they didn't hear anything until now and don't want to hear anythinhg in the future. I hope this is not the case. Justices of the Supreme Court don't live in a vacuum. They surely read the AOL poll, showing that the majority of the public wants this issue investigated. They know that I filed the Keys case together with another attorney. They know that numerous members of the military have signed up to be represented as plaintiffs by me. They know that I will be coming to Supreme Court time and again demanding answers. They know that the number of my supporters is growing exponentially. I believe Chief Justice Roberts scheduled my case a week after Bergs for a reason. If the full Supreme Court does not rule favorably on Berg's case, my case will serve as an assurance policy aweek later. Why do I say that?
1. First of all my case does not have a problem of standing. My client Gail Lightfoot was a vice presidential candidate on the ballot. Four of my clients are electors, five out of seven have served in the military and some of them are subject to recall. They might be facing a charge of treason for following the orders of Commander in Chief who is not legitimate and who is loyal to another Sovereignty.
2. In my case the Chief Justice of the lower Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of California has denied the petition by writing only one word "Denied", therefor the Justices of the Supreme Court of the US are free to rule on my pleadings. In all the prior cases there were specific negative decisions written by lower courts that had to be overcome.
3. My case provides not only the argument of Kenya and Indonesia, but also Donofrio's argument, definitions of Natural born citizen, as it was when the Constitution was adopted, namely that one is a natural born citizen if one is born in the country to parents that are citizens. This definition by Emerich De Vattel was later echoed by John Jay and John A Bingham and resonated in Minor and Elg cases.
4. My case has remarkable precedents of Larry Holmes and Eldridge Cleaver, that were removed from the ballot by previous Secretaries of State of Ca, because they did not qualify. There birth certificate (original one) showed them younger then 35 y.o.
5. My State electors didn't have necessary certificates of electors.
6. Lastly, don't forget the dead elector, what are they going to do about that, remove her out of the grave and resuscitate?
At the end of the day all I can do is hope for the best. God's ways are unknown and the wheels of Justice turn slowly. I hope my case will be heard on the merit during the oral argument. I am not telling the court to decide in my favor, I am saying that all of these arguments have to be heard by each and every American citizen. The Supreme Court owes the American people an answer, who is this man, is he a citizen of Indonesia? Kenya? Great Britain? What is his legal name? Do we live in a Communist country or a dictatorship where the laws are never enforced? Or do we live in a country, where the courts decide based on the Constitution? The courts hear only one side of the story from our main stream media. It is up to you if the Justices hear your side of the story.
I hope I provided an answer that is comprehensive enough
Good night and God Bless
Orly
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Follow up on Bill Burkett
As I stated previously I have received information that Mr. Bill Burkett was hired by Obama campaign sometime in Feb of 2008.
Bill Burkett is the person that supplied Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes with info on George Bush, stating that some strings were pulled to get him into National Guard instead of Active military. Later info came, showing that the documents were forged.
I was looking for corroborating evidence in regards to Bill Burkett being hired by BO.
I received info that sometime in September of this year there was a radio program on WOAI, in San Antonio TX. DJ's name was Parker, I believe Clayton Parker. He talked about Bill Burkett, who was linked to Dan Rather's forged documents, being hired by BO. The issue of course, is he in any way connected to all of these forged documents or was he sat up to be a fall guy in case the forgeries blow up in somebody's face.
Does somebody have this talk show host's phone number? Bill Burkett's number? Did any of you listen to this program, what was said? any specific facts, dates, names, documents? if you have any specific info e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com or call 949-683-5411
Bill Burkett is the person that supplied Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes with info on George Bush, stating that some strings were pulled to get him into National Guard instead of Active military. Later info came, showing that the documents were forged.
I was looking for corroborating evidence in regards to Bill Burkett being hired by BO.
I received info that sometime in September of this year there was a radio program on WOAI, in San Antonio TX. DJ's name was Parker, I believe Clayton Parker. He talked about Bill Burkett, who was linked to Dan Rather's forged documents, being hired by BO. The issue of course, is he in any way connected to all of these forged documents or was he sat up to be a fall guy in case the forgeries blow up in somebody's face.
Does somebody have this talk show host's phone number? Bill Burkett's number? Did any of you listen to this program, what was said? any specific facts, dates, names, documents? if you have any specific info e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com or call 949-683-5411
Info from a reader Ruth Mutti-could there be campaign contribution fraud and tax evasion?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Please see the attached letter from a reader Ruth Mutti. You can see the addresses for Barack Obama pulled from different databases previously. It looks like these addresses were provided in connection with donations and campaign contributions. Let's follow the money trail. I will post info from other readers that follow similar patterns. What do we have?
a. is it money that was reported as donation, but not actually given?
b. money reported as donation but actually refunded to the donor? is there a tax evasion pattern?
c. were deals made between donors and recipients to split the money?
d. are some of these organizations not existant or not legitimate?
there are so many possibilities, it will take too long to describe all of them and I am tired, it has been a long day.
Please, make sure to forward this to Chicago FBI 312-421-6700, please verify the e-mail address. I posted previously chicago@ic.fbi.gov please verify the e-mail and let me know. Please forward this to Patrick Fitzgerald's office, 9 Supreme Court Justices, cc to any and all law enforcement
Here's the letter
Dr Orly,
While researching some of the addresses listed on your blog I ran into the following:
Two campaign contributions made by "Barack Obama" from two different addresses that don't appear to be his. (I pulled up the property profiles for these properties.) Neither of these addresses was on the list you posted.
One address has the owner listed as Jane L. Stuart. Might that be
the same Jane L. Stuart that Treasurer of the Illinois Judges Association?
There is a second public record for the same address that lists the owner of a trust.
The second address that a campaign contribution as made from is a commercial entity called Fresh Choice.
The details to all of this are below.
The link to the page that lists these two campaign contributions is at the bottom of the email.
Isn't this interesting?
Warmest regards,
Ruth Mutti
Campaign contributions updated 03/2008 made by Barack Obama:
The First of Two addresses:
5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, IL $4,600 to Hillary Clinton
two names listed at this address, neither are Barack Obama
ONE Owner Listed at this address: Property Detail Report
For Property Located At
5046 S GREENWOOD AVE , CHICAGO, IL 60615-2806
Owner Information:
Owner Name: STUART JANE L
Mailing Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE , CHICAGO, IL 60615
Phone Number:
Recording date/sale date 8/25/2000 $825,000
Question: is this the same Jane L. Stuart that Treasurer of the Illinois Judges Association?
Note: also on public record for Jane L. Stuart: 6144 S. Indiana Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, Recording/sale date 1/1/0001 amount $0 multi-family
The Second Owner Listed at this property:
Property Detail Report
For Property Located At
5046 S GREENWOOD AVE , CHICAGO, IL 60615-2806
Owner Information:
Owner Name: TRUST 10209
Mailing Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE , CHICAGO, IL 60615
Recording date/Sale Date 6/21/2005 Sale price $1,650,000.00
==================================================================================================
233 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL $2,300 to Hillary Clinton
This address is a commercial building
Fresh Choice
233 N Michigan Ave
Chicago, IL 60601
3128561454
Both of the above mentioned campaign contributions can be found at the following link:
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&newest=1&lname=Obama&fname=Barac&search=Search
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear my case
Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ01.07.09.
Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them, telling them to Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all. This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them, telling them to Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all. This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
