Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Monday, June 6, 2011

YOU GOT SERVED! Orly Taitz has standing to pursue Obama Fraud Social Security Numbers, and advances Complaint with Judge Lamberth's permission

While the defense for Obama attempts to redact the evidence of Fraud, Orly Taitz pursues the case:
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE                        §
                             Plaintiff,                         § Freedom of information violation
                                                                   §             5USC §552     
                   v.                                             §        CASE # 1:11-cv-00402   
                                                                   §   Assigned to Chief Judge
Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the            §             
     Social Security Administration,             §     Hon. Royce C. Lamberth
                                                                   § Designation: FOIA/Privacy Act
                                                                    §  Motion for Clarification
                    Respondent                                      §
Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, hereinafter “Taitz” is submitting this motion for Clarification to be decided based on the memorandum of points and authorities attached herein and oral argument, if the court finds, that the oral argument is required.
Defendant filed  Motion to strike, requesting to seal the complaint, first amended complaint and all the exhibits or alternatively redact social security numbers.
Plaintiff thanks the court for  allowing the documents not to be sealed, and only requesting refilling with redaction. Plaintiff believes that this case is of the outmost National importance and sealing the complaint and the exhibits will deprive the public of their right to know the truth.
Plaintiff, however, is requesting clarification from the court and the defense, as to what do they want redacted, if anything. Clarification is needed for following reasons:
1. There is a requirement of redaction of VALID social security numbers. Individuals should have only one social security number.   

2. Affidavit of investigator Sankey, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, shows that national databases, such as Lexis Nexis and Choice Point, showed over a hundred bogus units of bogus social security numbers and addresses, which included some 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in HI, where Obama resided, when he started using a social security number.  As one individual is  supposed to have only one social security number,   and there are N numbers in the databases, it means that at least (N-1 ) numbers are not valid and do not need to be redacted or all N numbers are invalid and do not need to be redacted. There was high probability, that all 39 numbers are invalid, as none were issued in HI. Affidavits of investigator Susan Daniels and recently retired senior deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security, John Sampson, confirm, that Obama could not possibly obtain Connecticut social security number, while residing in HI. (Exhibits to first amended complaint)

3. Searching through those numbers  Taitz found that Connecticut number 042-68-4425, is most commonly used.

4. Obama’s selective service certificate shows him using this number.( Exhibit 1)

5. Social Security Verification systems (Exhibit 2) shows, however, that this number 042-68-4425 was never issued to Obama. This means that none of the numbers used by Obama during his life and used today in the White House, are valid numbers . Those are either numbers, that were never assigned or numbers, that were assigned to deceased individuals, whose death was not reported to the Social Security administration. Mr. Obama’s lifelong friend, domestic terrorist William Ayers, aka Mr. “Guilty as sin, free as a bird”,   described in his memoirs, Fugitive Days, how he and his wife, Ms. domestic terrorist Bernadette Dohrn, searched through the cemeteries for graves of children, got their birth certificates and applied for the social security numbers under the names of the deceased. “After the Baltimore fiasco, stealing ID was forbidden. Instead we began to build ID sets around documents as flimsy as a fishing license or a laminated card available in a Times Square novelty shop called “Official ID.” We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart, and the best source of those were dead-baby birth certificates. I spent impious days over the next several months tramping through rural cemeteries in Iowa and Wisconsin, Illinois and North Dakota, searching for those sad little markers of people born between 1940 and 1950 who had died between 1945 and 1955. The numbers were surprising:  two in one graveyard, a cluster of fourteen in another. Those poor souls had typically been issued birth certificates—available to us at any county courthouse for a couple of bucks and a simple form with information I could copy from the death announcement at the archive of the local paper—but they had never applied for a Social Security card.

Collecting those birth certificates became a small industry, and within a year we had over a hundred. For years I was a paper-made Joseph Brown, and then an Anthony Lee, remarkably durable identities. My on-paper official residences: a transient hotel in San Francisco and a warehouse in New York.” Bill Ayers, Fugitive Days. Ayers had a whole business of forged social security card making. It is unfortunate, that the person, occupying the position of the U.S. president, was using and is using a bogus social security number.

Clearly Mr. Obama cannot suffer any losses, due to his use of an invalid number, however there is a great benefit to the public at large, to ascertain the loopholes and malfunction within the Social Security Administration and make sure, that not only Mr. Obama is ultimately prosecuted, but also to make sure, that proper measures are taken to prevent such occurrence in the future.     Great public interest and great significance of this most important matter of the national security outweigh minor inconveniences for the defendant commissioner of the Social Security administration and for Mr. Obama.

6. Since NONE of the numbers used by Mr. Obama represent a valid social security number, assigned to him, Taitz needs clarification from the court and the defendant, commissioner of the Social Security Administration, what exactly do they want her to redact? Do they want her to redact numerical gibberish, numbers that are invalid and were never assigned or the numbers, that were stolen from the deceased individuals? Please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Service of process
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above  was served on 06.06.2011 on:
Us Attorney -District of Columbia
555 4th street NW
Washington DC 20530
(being served by ECF)
cc Congressman Darrell Issa


House Oversight Committee
2347 Rayburn House Building
Washington DC, 20515
cc Congressman Mike Rogers


House Intelligence Committee
133 Cannon House Office building
Washington DC 20515
cc Congressman Sam Johnson


House Subcommittee on Social Security

House Ways and Means Committee
2929 N Central Expy, 240
Richardson, TX 75080
cc Congressman Dana Rohrbacher


House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations’

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
2300 Rayburn House Building
Washington DC 20515

I would recommend a highly aggressive pursuit tactic that takes the offense against the Obama  Attorneys on a whole new level, and challenge their averments, concealments, refusal to disclose, and  how they attempt and do defraud the Court and for an opener cite:

Fraud on the court is conduct: 
1) on the part of an officer of the court; 
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself; 
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 
5) that deceives the court.”  

Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2001) @852

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power 
to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States, 
is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640  @653 (1948)

Part of that burden is proof of identity that they are who they say they are, and that they met the requirements subject to the job for which they have applied.

Obama must cough up genuine identity papers as well as prove he is a United States Natural Born Citizen

"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen..shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

when challenged.  That is part of the ruling we can demand be applied from Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 regarding the burden of a US President fulfilling a burden of establishing his "right" to delegate power by the Constitution of the United States and the alleged "authority vested in" him that he claims on every Executive Order he signs, etc..

One document he needs to cough up is a valid Birth Certificate with WITNESSES to the Birth.

“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
" In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
Nguyen v. INS, 533 US 53 @54,62 (1948)
Another for those born 1961,  is a valid Selective Service Form with a Valid Social Security Card and Number filled out before he reached the age of 26 years old.  
Obama is using an Identity Theft Stolen Social Security Number on his Selective Service Form, thus violating the Selective Service Registration Law through Identity Fraud and disqualifying him for office...on top of his NOT being a US Natural Born Citizen (lacking a US Citizen Father, regardless of race, color, or creed).  
It is a legal fact that Natural Born Citizenship is required to be a US President, which Obama does NOT have... 
NOT having the even the proper US Citizenship Credentials to produce into evidence in a COURT of Law,
and especially by NOT BEING a UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by the same principles of primogeniture and entail in regard to a sole US Citizenship (i.e., because he has NO US Citizen Father to Naturally take the place in Society of). Hence, he is a Usurper of the US Presidency, and an active criminal regularly committing felonies every time he acts or speaks in the fraudulently obtained office of the US Presidency.


[Updated and re-edited Open letter to the Mainstream Media 06/07/2011]
 Open Letter to the Mainstream Media and Obama defenders, from Brianroy:

YOU have  run away in denial or acted as co-accessories to felony fraud after the fact on Constitutionalism where Barack Hussein Obama II is concerned. The Founders and early Supreme Court by contrast to you and Jay in practice toward Obama, called for Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation.  [1]

Firstly, Barack was born with a foreign citizenship via his father, and retained such until his 23rd birthday. I will address his NOT being a United States qualified President by addressing this issue, but not near as at length as it deserves.

 Secondly, he has used by identity theft a stolen Connecticut Social Security Number.  I will leave off this second aspect, but for
 in order to make my response more brief. 

 I say that as in a Court of Law we also must weigh the facts, and make a decision to stand up for righteousness and truth. 

Barack Hussein Obama II was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies via his British Passport carrying father, regardless of where he was geographically born, [2]   --  and hence by his citizenship at birth -- regardless of where he was born -- is neither a "natural born citizen" of the United States per Article 2.1.5 (formerly 2.1.4), nor 14th Amendment qualified under Section 1 of that Amendment. 

…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was
both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and
a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC)
by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”

On July 28, 1868, a mandatory state residency and sole allegiance to the United States was specified as a requirement in the US Constitution by the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 

John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639,  [3]  states:
 “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.

Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. 

So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."
"It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102, 103

The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

 George D. Collins asked the question:
“are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”
Collins cited Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted 
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens"  [4] he also mined that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE  D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”

Obama as a British Citizen through inheritance by his father who married and legitimized him with a marriage to the minor Ann Dunham on February 2, 1961,  owed allegiance AT BIRTH to foreign lands…allegedly to both the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and Kenya at birth, regardless if he was born in the US or not.  Only by complete dishonesty can anyone label the man a US constitutionally qualified occupant of the Presidency. 

US v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898...Obama isn't even 14th Amendment qualified per Wong Kim Ark Standards

Specifics of Wong Kim Ark refute / disqualify Obama:

1)     @ 169 US 652, Wong Kim Ark (WKA) was born and reared in one permanent residence in California“and never lost nor changed  that residence."               
2)       @ 169 US 652 – 653   “neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him
Page 169 U. S. 653  therefrom.”

3)      @ 169 US 654, we are told that he temporarily left the United States at age 17 to visit China, and returned in the same calendar year.  WKA was admitted in by Customs as a native-born citizen of the United States.

4)      @ 169 US 654, although both parents were resident aliens in the United States, they kept and maintained a permanent residence and domicile for WKA to be born in and spend his first 21 years of life in, until he became of age at 21.
5)      @169 US 654, the resident alien parents were employed, “and there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China…”    

6)      @ 169 US 654, it was immediately recognized that WKA appeared to have immediately qualified as a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment Section 1’s “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."     

7)      @ 169 US 705, the conclusion was: “ The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Conclusion drawn from WKA:   
The Court concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –
1)      Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.
    Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him. 
2)      Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
3)      Neither of his parents were employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth. 

Barack fails the WKA test: 

By comparison, Barack Obama has never proved he was USA born.  He refuses to submit a hard copy into Court record under penalty of perjury, etc.

By comparison, Barack Obama had his allegiance renounced by swearing fealty to the Indonesian flag daily in Menteng - 1 in Jakarta Indonesia, being an adopted Indonesian Citizen where the step-father took him to the renunciation of all other allegiances, including the United States, to the consent of the mother.

By comparison, Barack as Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah) -- his adopted and legal name in Indonesia -- had 4 years residence in Indonesia, and would visit Hawaii and stay temporarily for up to 3 weeks at a time, and attend Elementary School as a visitor pending his removal and return after his mother finished vacationing in Hawaii with her parents.   The primary residence of the mother was with her husband in Indonesia, and the primary residence of the child was with his mother.  Hence, there was no permanence of a US Domicile at any time for Barry Soetoro / Barack Obama until he was about age 10 or 11 and moved in with his grandparents at that time.

Obama's Mother declares Obama Jr. lost his US Citizenship as of August 13, 1968

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10
The above passport file information on Barack Hussein Obama II's mother reveals that  
Barack Hussein Obama II 
has NO 14th Amendment US Citizenship,
and de facto, 
was sworn under signed oath by his Mom
to no longer be a Citizen of the United States
as of August 13, 1968!!!

The immediate form following the opening letter has the mother sign under oath on the back page of  Form FS-299 of 7-64.

Following the instructions:
"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state, accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivisions thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory, made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force , the Government of the United States.

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement  under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}

Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, and the document stood to apply all relevant passages that could apply to a 7 year old who lost US Citizenship by naturalization to Indonesia with a renunciation of his allegiance and renunciation of his citizenship by both he and his mother and his step-father for him. 

Again, his own mother on August 13, 1968, before a Department of State consulate, denounced her son Barack Hussein Obama  as having foreign allegiances and foreign naturalization to Indonesia, and signed to this effect in form FS-277, writing and striking his name out.  
  Ipso facto and de jure, Barack Obama II is not legally President of the United States in the eyes of the US Constitution because he was born a British Citizen,
and his entire occupancy in the White House is therefore legally voidable.  [5]

We are at a Rhineland vulnerability Apex in history when Obama is still stoppable in the US Supreme Court, but that window is closing very fast.  

I say it is a moral duty to act within the choice that the Law still allows us, to follow righteousness and truth, and that we follow the advice of the US Supreme Court and VOID OUT Obama's entire Presidency. 
Please respectfully and diligently research the issue.  I am hopeful that a thorough and honest examination will yield the same requirement to motivate those who would HONESTLY and without bias, with the same demeanor and refusal a person on the jury must have when judging a case on the facts of the Law (and NOT the color of skin or personal prejudice) will result in many of you realizing that you too must stand up now, and challenge an illegal Obama Presidency.   Thank you.

 [1]  Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571
In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”

[2]   Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @102
“…in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government….”

[4]  see also:  
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290

- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

“Where a statute is defective because of under-inclusion there exist two remedial alternatives:
a court may either declare it a nullity
and order that its benefits not extend to the class the legislation was intended to benefit, 
it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by exclusion.”  
 Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1970) @ 361

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180 
states that  “a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” 
and  “in declaring what  shall be the SUPREME law of the land,
the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned; 
and not the laws of the United States generally, 
but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution,
have that rank.
If Obama’s Presidency is NOT in pursuance to the US Constitution, so also are all laws and enactments of his VOIDABLE. 

No comments:

Post a Comment