Main Menu

Tag Archives | Commander in Chief

Cook v. Simtech orders not sealed

Taitz/Cook

Taitz/Cook

Stefan Cook’s attorney Orly Taitz has apparently gone berzerk over the results of her case in Florida, Cook v. Simtech. She’s screaming NAZI at the judge and demanding his removal from the bench. Why, because she says he “sealed” his orders. Orly is also feeling the heat because her bad advice cost Cook has lost his $120,000 job. (If you want to keep your security clearance, you don’t run around in public challenging the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief.)

After the case was dismissed, Orly made several motions to reconsider the case and to dismiss the judge.

Of course, it makes no sense for orders to be sealed in a case like this, and indeed it’s not true. A quick visit to the court’s web site (subscription required) reveals the orders as follows:

Full docket text for document 10:
ENDORSED ORDER denying [8] Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

Full docket text for document 11:
ENDORSED ORDER denying as frivolous and wholly without merit [9] Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and [9]Motion for Rehearing re: [6] Order on Motion for Reconsideration of [3] Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

Continue Reading →

Cybercrime at the Supreme Court

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz notified Obama Conspiracy Theories this afternoon of this press release, sent to 26,000 news outlets, the US Congress, Senate, state legislatures, state attorney generals, US district attorneys and state governors. I’m getting tired just typing the list.

Dr. Taitz continues in her attempts to undermine popular support for American institutions, destabilize American society, and bring about political disruption and crisis with this fanciful tale woven as an alternative explanation for why all the “M” “A” (application) type entries on the Supreme Court docket public access system were unavailable for a couple of days. Clearly her suggestion that the Supreme Court’s deliberation process is “illegal” is not designed to further her cases at the Supreme Court, but rather to attack the Constitution itself.

Regarding Illegal activity in the Supreme Court of the United States, demand for immediate criminal investigation of suspected forgery of court records, tempering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related crimes.

Dear Mr. Holder, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Sullivan

As I have reported previously my Case Lightfoot v Bowen was erased from the exterior docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro’s (Obama/Soetoro’s) inauguration and only two days before the case was supposed to be heard in the full conference of all 9 Justices. After phone calls of hundreds of outraged citizens the case was reentered on the docket in the evening of January 22, right before it was supposed to be heard in the morning of January 23. In my case I stated that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro is ineligible for presidency due to the fact that the President and Commander in chief has to be a Natural born citizen: born to two US citizen parents on US soil. Obama’s father was here on a student visa, never a US citizen and for that reason alone he didn’t qualify, aside from that there is no evidence of any birthing  file in any hospital in Hawaii, Obama sealed all his vital records and his school registration in Indonesia show him as a citizen of Indonesia. Continue Reading →

Naturalization Acts of New York (1770)

newyorkA great deal is made in some quarters about a letter from John Jay of New York to George Washington in 1787 in which Jay suggested that the new US Commander in Chief should be a natural born citizen. What did Jay mean by that phrase? Did he adopt the words from the Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel (with whom he was familiar) or did he perhaps adapt them from the laws of his own state of New York?

Prior to the American revolution in 1776 Americans were British subjects, but it seems clear from the following that natural born subjects were those born in the colony of New York, with no reference to who their parents were.

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor the Lieutenant Governor the Council and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within this Colony.

January 27, 1770 Continue Reading →

Natural Born Timeline

  • 1712 – South Carolina General Assembly passes law on inheriting property saying that natural born subjects may have alien parents.
  • 1732 – Charter of Georgia declares every one who “happened to be born” in the province and their children born anywhere “natural born subjects”.
  • 1758 – Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel writes a philosophical work, applying the concept of “natural law” to the laws of nations and international relations. De Vattel’s The Law of Nations was an influential work in America, and was considered authoritative in the area of international relations. (De Vattel is cited later in court cases in support of slavery and withholding citizenship from the children of immigrants.) De Vattel describes the natives (or indengnes) as those born in the country of citizen parents.
  • 1787 – John Jay letter to Gen. Washington expresses concern about “foreigners” in the government and suggests that the Commander in Chief be a “natural born citizen.” (underlining in original).
  • 1787 – United States Constitution drafted. The Constitution describes two kinds of citizens: “natural born citizens” in Article II as a qualification for President of the United States and “naturalization” under the enumerated powers of Congress. Continue Reading →

Hollister v. Soetoro et al.

Snowball's chance in hell

Snowball's chance in hell

Gregory Hollister (and lawyer Philip J. Berg) is suing President Obama and Vice-President Biden to force them to settle their dispute over which one of them is really president. The action is called an “interpleader” suit, typically used by insurance companies to force the issue of who they should pay a policy to by bringing a suit against the claimants so that the court decides the issue. Continue Reading →