U.S. Attorneys with the Department of Justice have moved to dismiss Orly Taitz’s Quo Warranto case for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the U.S. Attorneys’ Office asserts that any judicial or bar sanctions against Dr. Taitz are the consequences of her own actions.

“Although, to Defendant’s knowledge, this is Dr. Taitz’s first case in which she serves as Plaintiff, this is not her first bite at the apple, or even her second: she has unsuccessfully represented plaintiffs in at least three judicial districts seeking to raise similar claims. In each of these cases, the United States district courts have declined to find jurisdiction and have denied relief similar to the ultimate relief sought here.

Dr. Taitz’s Complaint suffers from exactly the same defects that doomed many of her previous litigation efforts. Simply put, her allegations about the President’s citizenship are not a concrete and particularized injury, as required to establish standing under the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, and the harms that she has suffered from judicial and/or bar sanctions for her conduct in litigation are the consequences of her own actions and not in any way traceable to any legal claim cognizable against Defendant.”

source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462666/posts

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Remember this, the Justice Department is the chief law enforement branch of the Administration. Eric Holder is the master thief behind DOJ. He himself is an appointee of Obama. To allow the Justice Department to interfere with any case filed against Obama is the quintessential act of a treason against the people. It is a violation of the Constitution for the DOJ to defend Obama. We the taxpayers pay the salaries of the DOJ, not Obama. DOJ cannot legally act on hehalf of Obama in the eligibility challenge. When Obama is finally taken down and he will be taken down, Eric Holder and all the attorneys that soiled their dirty hands in the coverup need to be indicted and prosecuted right along with Obama.

Orly Taitz is back in the news. Appartently the threats against her life have increased and she has now petitioned the United Nations to protect her. You read that right. I never thought I would see the day that Orly would ask the creeps from the United Nations to intervene but it is true. She has hired an attorney and they have petitioned the United Nations for help:

By Bob Unruh

A California lawyer who has shepherded several of the high-profile legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has filed a pleading in federal court in Washington, saying she faces a $20,000 penalty and a threat to her law license and needs the president’s birth documents to defend herself.

Attorney Orly Taitz told WND she submitted the pleading today to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Taitz said she applied for a preliminary injunction, because her understanding of the rules of procedure for the district court shows a hearing or decision must be returned within 20 days.

Among the cases she has handled have been one in California on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes which now is on appeal, another in Georgia on behalf of Maj. Stefan Cook and yet another in Georgia on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes.

WND has reported efforts to raise the question of Obama’s eligibility at the state and national levels since before the 2008 election.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed alleging Obama did not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery so that information about Obama’s birth could be obtained. Most have been dismissed at the lower court level based on judges’ decisions that the plaintiffs did not have “standing” – or the prospect of a personal injury in the cases.

Taitz’ filing in Washington argues she’s facing a $20,000 penalty imposed by Judge Clay D. Land in the Rhodes case and possible action by the California Bar Association, to which Land forwarded his highly critical order.

“Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction … to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the plaintiff to the [California] bar,” she wrote. “Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1.”

She said the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded, in a previous case, a sitting president “has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office.”

Taitz stated she has “a unique standing to bring this case as she suffered unique damages and she was … harmed by the actions of the defendant.”

Her “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation” has been under repeated hacker attacks. She operates through a mailing address of 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., 92688.

“Obama has refused to unseal any of his original vital records,” she said. “No one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, college application records, financial aid forms or his medical records,” she argues. “The only record Obama presented was a short version Certification of Live Birth issued in 2007 which didn’t provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor in attendance or signatures of any witnesses.

“In light of the fact that the state of HI statute 338-17 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates and statute 338-5 allowed birth certificates to be obtained without any corroborating documents from any hospitals, there is no verifiable prima facia evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii,” she argues.

“Plaintiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26, 2010, his original birth certificate, which was allegedly obtained based on the defendant’s birth in Kapi’olani hospital in Hawaii [in 1961],” she seeks.

She’s also asking for school and university records as well as passport records.

“When one compares the weight of hardships on both parties, the hardship on the plaintiff greatly outweighs the hardship on the defendant,” she said.

She argued that the U.S. attorney’s office should not handle Obama’s defense.

“In case the U.S. attorney’s office is not recused and it is found that the defendant has committed federal criminal offenses, the same U.S. attorney’s office will be prosecuting him, which will deny him fair trail.”

source: World Net Daily…

This article was posted last week on the Post & Email blog. It is very good as it explains a lot of the detail behind a “Quo Warranto” petition.

ASKS TO FILE QUO WARRANTO AGAINST BARACK OBAMA
Post and Email
Summary by Harry Hunter

On Jan. 25, Dr. Orly Taitz petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to question the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be president. She filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto,” listing herself as plaintiff and Obama as respondent.

Congress long ago provided a way to simply ask of an officeholder, “By what warrant (right) do you hold office?” Since Barack Hussein Obama has never established as a fact that he is a citizen of the United States, much less a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, and since he has made every effort to conceal actual relevant records while staking his presidency on a possibly forged digital image of a secondary birth document posted on the internet, it would seem that Taitz has every right to ask that the court verify Obama’s eligibility.

In her motion, Taitz first deals with the question of jurisdiction: “The court has jurisdiction under DC statute Sections 16-3501—16-3503 . . . and the case revolves around the Federal Question of eligibility of the President under Quo Warranto.” Attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have dealt extensively with quo warranto at their respective websites here and here. Donofrio has subsequently sequestered his older blogs.

Taitz’s description of the respondent in this case is a brief summary of the eligibility questions surrounding our putative president:

Respondent – Barack Hussein Obama, hereinafter “Obama”, President of the United States and Commander in Chief, who refused to present in any court of law or to the public any legally acceptable vital records that would prove his eligibility for US presidency based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. As described in the Law of Nations Emer De Vatttel, Vol 1, Chapter 19, 212. From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship of and allegiance to three other nations: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.

read the entire article here at Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/27/orly-taitz-petitions-district-of-columbia-court/

by Bob Unruth

Contends president’s allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia

A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama’seligibility to be president has brought a “Quo Warranto” case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.

A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth.

Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama’s eligibility.

She previously attempted Quo Warranto cases on behalf of government officials, without response. This time she filed the action directly with the court on her own behalf.

“The case revolves around the federal question of eligibility of the president under Quo Warranto,” she wrote.

An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, previously told WND the demand was a legitimate course of action.

“She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND when the issue first arose. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’”

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

Taitz’ claim states Obama, whom she identifies as “Acting President of the United States,” has refused “to present in any court of law or to the public any vital records that would show his eligibility as for U.S. presidency based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship and allegiance to three other nations: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.”