CA Judge Reinstates Obama Eligibility Lawsuit: Identity Document Fraud & Election Fraud

California Judge Reinstates Obama Eligibility Lawsuit: Obama Identity Document Fraud & Election Fraud

- BirthReport

Via Dr. Taitz at Before It's News: Kathleen O’Leary, Presiding Judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal reinstated the Appeal Taitz v Obama et al filed by the candidate for the U.S. Senate Attorney Orly Taitz

- Kathleen O'Leary -

Press Release
Law Offices of Orly Taitz
Kathleen O’Leary, Presiding Judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal reinstated the Appeal Taitz v Obama et al filed by the candidate for the U.S. Senate Attorney Orly Taitz.

Appeal at hand involves Senator Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency.

The case at hand was filed in July 2012. It involves evidence of one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California. Additionally appeal involves lack of legitimacy of Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency due to his use of forged IDs, stolen CT Social Security number, last name not legally his and fraudulent claim to be a U.S. citizen. Evidence in the case involves a certified copy of the passport records of Obama’s mother, S. Ann Dunham, which shows her son’s legal last name to be Soebarkah, not Obama, it involves Obama’s school records from Indonesia showing his citizenship to be Indonesian, sworn affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators showing Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service certificate to be forged and Social Security number used by Barack Obama in his 2009 tax returns and posted on WhiteHouse.gov to be fraudulently used and failing both E-Verify and SSNVS. - source.

JUDGE'S ORDER BELOW VIDEO OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124071908

PIXEL PATRIOT COMPILED DOCKET DETAILS BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124078604

VIDEO: DR. TAITZ INTERVIEWED BY ADAM KOKESH BELOW:

PREVIOUS REPORTS: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Taitz+Obama+California

  Taitz v Obama - Judge O'Leary's Order Reinstating Obama Eligibility Case - 2/4/2013 by   ORYR

  Taitz v Obama Docket Details As Of 2/5/2013 -  Obama Eligibility Lawsuit - by   ObamaRelease YourRecords

www.ObamaFailedEverify.com

For original article go to: 

Team Obama (U.S. Atty.) Seeks More Time To Quash California Subpoenas

As reported here Dr. Orly Taitz subpoenaed numerous individuals involved in the Grinols v. Electoral College including Barack Obama. The U.S. Attorney just filed a motion to extend time for responding to the subpoenas and filed the opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the electoral count. Last week a hearing was set for January 3rd, 2013. EXCERPTS:

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENAS

First, you have not delivered a copy of each subpoena to the persons named in the subpoenas, as required by of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Instead, you have simply mailed by Federal Express copies of your subpoenas to either the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii (in the case of your subpoena to the President) or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (in the case of your subpoenas to the Commissioner of Social Security, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, and the Director of Selective Service). In the case of your subpoena to Darrell Issa, your subpoena does not reflect any service whatsoever.

Second, with the exception of the President (who is a named party), the subpoenas require the named individuals to travel more than 100 miles to the place specified for production of documents. Such a requirement in a subpoena to a non-party is prohibited absent court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c (3)(A)(ii).

Third, you have not provided “a reasonable time to comply” with the subpoenas, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i). This objection applies equally to all of the subpoenas, but is particularly egregious in the case of the subpoena directed to Darrell Issa because the subpoena was issued on December 24, 2012, was not served on Mr. Issa, and directs him to produce documents by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012.

Fourth, the subpoenas would require the disclosure of documents prohibited from disclosure by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A (iii).

Fifth, the subpoenas subject all of the named persons to an undue burden because: (1) the plaintiffs named in your underlying lawsuit – Grinols v. Electoral College, 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD – lack standing to sue, (2) the claims are barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, and (3) the claims are barred by the political question doctrine.

Sixth, you do not appear to have made any attempt to comply with any of the agencies’ Touhy regulations in connection with your subpoenas. See Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 464-65 (1951). [...]

Federal Defendants intend to file a formally noticed motion to quash the subpoenas forthwith and hereby ask the Court to extend the deadline for responding to the subpoenas until after the Court disposes of the motion to quash the subpoenas. [...]

MOTION CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118079864

There's more to the article here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-seeks-more-time-to-quash-subpoenas.html