How the Obama administration is facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood's plan of the "grand jihad."...
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has just been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books.
FP: Andy McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
The Obama administration has now named a CAIR-trained supporter of convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian to be its envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. What gives here?
McCarthy: Jamie, as always it’s a great pleasure to be here.
It’s not such a great pleasure, however, to talk about what is happening to our country. What we are seeing is the domestic version of the Obama administration’s dangerously loopy “engagement” strategy. Basically, if you’re a friend of the United States, say Israel or Poland, prepare to be screwed; if you despise America as, say, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood do, prepare to be wooed. What’s happening here is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to unwind.
The OIC is an insidious organization dedicated to the imposition of Sharia (i.e., the evisceration of liberty) and the destruction of Israel. Yet, as Claudia Rosett’s recent brilliant column in Forbes observes, we are subsidizing its activities and giving it a propaganda victory every time we repeat its claim to be a “57-nation bloc” (one of those “nations” is the Palestinian territories, which do not constitute a nation). We shouldn’t have an envoy for it at all. We can thank the Bush administration’s pandering for that, but the Obama administration takes every Bush misstep and increases it geometrically. So now we will have an envoy whose credibility with the OIC will lie in the fact that he shares its disdain for the American government’s national defense measures against Islamic terrorists.
FP: What’s with Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano and her cozy relationship with Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. affiliates?
McCarthy: This is a continuation of what President Obama started in Cairo, when the Muslim Brotherhood was invited to attend his ballyhooed speech. There are many people on the Left who have argued for years that we should be engaging the Brotherhood — that they are the “good” Islamists who are willing to work through a political process rather than resort to terror. Putting aside that they actually do support terrorism (against U.S. forces in Muslim countries and against Israel, at the least), shouldn’t we be concerned about what these “moderates” want to achieve through the political process? They are dedicated to the installation of Sharia law, the necessary precondition, in Islamist ideology, to the Islamization of society.
Many of the groups for which Napolitiano has rolled out the red carpet — the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, for instances, are Muslim Brotherhood tentacles. Like CAIR, they were shown in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial to be part of what the Brotherhood described as ”grand jihad” to “sabotage” America from within. When you know that, the idea would be to keep them out. We’re inviting them in. I strongly recommend that people check out Richard Pollock’s report at Pajamas Media about Napolitano’s meeting with these groups.
FP: Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan has come out with some curious comments on the recidivism rates of released Gitmo detainees. Tell us about those comments and other aspects of this story that need more attention.
McCarthy: Well, the recidivism comment is just staggering. First of all, to say the rate at which former Gitmo detainees recidivate (i.e., go back to the jihad) is ”20 percent,” as Brennan said, is preposterous. We don’t know if someone is a recidivist unless we either encounter him on the battlefield or get reliable intelligence that he has rejoined the terrorist groups. That is, we can’t account for people we haven’t encountered on the battlefield or otherwise gotten good intelligence about.
This is not a criminal trial such that you have to suspend common sense and give those unaccounted for jihadists the benefit of the doubt. The only safe assumption is that the real recidivism rate is higher — no doubt much higher — than 20 percent. Moreover, even if it were lower, we are talking about people who go back to mass-murder, not shop-lifting. For Brennan to say 20 percent is fine because it compares favorably to the recidivism rate for ordinary criminals utterly misconstrues the difference between a national security challenge (which must be defeated) and a mere criminal justice problem (which has to be managed by good policing but can never really be eliminated). That would be a stupid remark for a cop or an analyst to make; for a high national security official to make it is inexcusable.
Beyond that, why is Brennan going to NYU to pander to Islamist activists like Omar Shahin? Michelle Malkin has an excellent piece on this unnoticed aspect of Brennan’s performance. Shahin was the ring-leader of the Flying Imams. He was also the leader at one of the most notorious Islamist mosques in the United States, the Islamic Center of Tucson. His predecessor there was Wael Hamza Julaidan, an al Qaeda founder designated by the Treasury Department as an international terrorist. Shahin gave fiery anti-Semitic “sermons” while at the mosque, the worshippers at which included 9/11 suicide bomber Hani Hanjour, bin Laden’s secretary Wadi el-Hage (since convicted in the embassy bombing case), and two young Saudis (Hamdan al-Shalawi and Muhammad al-Qudhaieen) who just happen to have been implicated in a 1999 “dry run” for the 9/11 attacks — engaging in the same sort of antics Shahin and the other Flying Imams engaged in. Shahin was the Arizona coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation (a charity later shuttered for supporting Hamas) and later became a representative of “Kind Hearts,” another Hamas charitable front. Yet, here is a top presidential adviser not only giving this guy the time of day but seemingly agreeing with him that our post-9/11 counterterrorism has been too aggressive. It’s shameful.
FP: What is happening in all of these developments and what threat does it pose?
McCarthy: The Muslim Brotherhood’s “grand jihad” — as it describes the plan in a 1991 memo — is to “sabotage” the United States from within. These developments show we’re not only failing to defend ourselves. We’re helping them along.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
THEY COME IN ALL SHAPES AND SIZES
I really really wonder if these two attend the Dar el-Eman Islamic Center in Arlington. You know, the one Jamal Qaddura is president of? That Jamal Qaddura who's running for Justice of the Peace . . .
Arlington woman, teen had explosives in pickup, police say
By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR.
ramirez@star-telegram.com
An Arlington woman and a teenager had explosives in their pickup Saturday evening during a road-rage incident with another motorist that started in Arlington and ended on Southeast Loop 820 in Fort Worth, authorities said Sunday.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Tom Crowley declined to make any additional comments other than to say that they had explosives.
Kimberly Al-Homsi, 45, and Yasinul Ansari, 18, also of Arlington, are scheduled to go before a federal judge in Fort Worth on Tuesday to face federal explosives charges, Crowley said Sunday. Federal offices are closed today for Presidents Day.
"Once the complaint is filed, there will be more information," Crowley said.
Al-Homsi remained in custody Sunday in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $210,000 bail. Ansari was in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail, accused of possession of a prohibited weapon.
Al-Homsi is accused of evading arrest with injury to an officer, possession of a prohibited weapon and two counts of making a terrorist threat -- all state charges.
Fort Worth police closed the highway Saturday evening for more than five hours at East Rosedale Street after what appeared to be an incident of road rage in Arlington turned into a bomb squad investigation in Fort Worth.
By 11:15 p.m. Saturday, members of the Fort Worth bomb squad had detonated four charges as they examined a vehicle containing what authorities called a suspicious device.
Authorities said Arlington police received a telephone call about 5 p.m. from a driver who reported that someone in another vehicle had pointed a weapon at him as they both traveled on Texas 360 between Pioneer Parkway and East Abram Street.
Arlington police saw a pickup matching the description and tried to stop it. The driver continued, and officers began pursuit, Arlington police said.
After about a 20-minute chase, the pickup hit a patch of ice, spun out of control and came to a stop on Rosedale beneath Loop 820 in Fort Worth.
After talking to Ansari and Al-Homsi, Arlington police asked that the Fort Worth bomb squad be called in.
Al-Homsi has a criminal history involving a fake grenade and possessing prohibited weapons, according to Tarrant County criminal court records.
In July 2007, Al-Homsi was arrested on suspicion of prohibited weapons after her roommate held Arlington police at bay during a six-hour standoff in their southeast Arlington home.
Four suspicious packages and a weapon were confiscated from the house after Al-Homsi's roommate, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, surrendered to police. Authorities never released details of what was in the packages.
Tarrant County criminal court records show that Al-Homsi was sentenced to 110 days in jail.
Court records also show that Al-Homsi waved a fake hand grenade at a motorist in 2005. She was put on probation for nine months for making a terroristic threat.
This report includes material from the Star-Telegram archives.
DOMINGO RAMIREZ, 817-390-7763
Arlington woman, teen had explosives in pickup, police say
By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR.
ramirez@star-telegram.com
An Arlington woman and a teenager had explosives in their pickup Saturday evening during a road-rage incident with another motorist that started in Arlington and ended on Southeast Loop 820 in Fort Worth, authorities said Sunday.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Tom Crowley declined to make any additional comments other than to say that they had explosives.
Kimberly Al-Homsi, 45, and Yasinul Ansari, 18, also of Arlington, are scheduled to go before a federal judge in Fort Worth on Tuesday to face federal explosives charges, Crowley said Sunday. Federal offices are closed today for Presidents Day.
"Once the complaint is filed, there will be more information," Crowley said.
Al-Homsi remained in custody Sunday in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $210,000 bail. Ansari was in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail, accused of possession of a prohibited weapon.
Al-Homsi is accused of evading arrest with injury to an officer, possession of a prohibited weapon and two counts of making a terrorist threat -- all state charges.
Fort Worth police closed the highway Saturday evening for more than five hours at East Rosedale Street after what appeared to be an incident of road rage in Arlington turned into a bomb squad investigation in Fort Worth.
By 11:15 p.m. Saturday, members of the Fort Worth bomb squad had detonated four charges as they examined a vehicle containing what authorities called a suspicious device.
Authorities said Arlington police received a telephone call about 5 p.m. from a driver who reported that someone in another vehicle had pointed a weapon at him as they both traveled on Texas 360 between Pioneer Parkway and East Abram Street.
Arlington police saw a pickup matching the description and tried to stop it. The driver continued, and officers began pursuit, Arlington police said.
After about a 20-minute chase, the pickup hit a patch of ice, spun out of control and came to a stop on Rosedale beneath Loop 820 in Fort Worth.
After talking to Ansari and Al-Homsi, Arlington police asked that the Fort Worth bomb squad be called in.
Al-Homsi has a criminal history involving a fake grenade and possessing prohibited weapons, according to Tarrant County criminal court records.
In July 2007, Al-Homsi was arrested on suspicion of prohibited weapons after her roommate held Arlington police at bay during a six-hour standoff in their southeast Arlington home.
Four suspicious packages and a weapon were confiscated from the house after Al-Homsi's roommate, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, surrendered to police. Authorities never released details of what was in the packages.
Tarrant County criminal court records show that Al-Homsi was sentenced to 110 days in jail.
Court records also show that Al-Homsi waved a fake hand grenade at a motorist in 2005. She was put on probation for nine months for making a terroristic threat.
This report includes material from the Star-Telegram archives.
DOMINGO RAMIREZ, 817-390-7763
HELP PROTECT WRITERS - CAIR IS SHOT DOWN IN FREEZING FREE SPEECH
also READ SECOND ARTICLE ON CAIR AT THE END OF DEBBIE'S
Please forgive my forwardness is asking you to share the following information or attend the meeting if possible Tuesday, February 16, 2010 in Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. You can read about it below:
Call to action for free speech
Subject: Free Speech for Journalists! Please meet Senate staffers on the Hill Feb. 16 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act
Please meet Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law.
Journalists, You can help get Freedom of Speech for all journalists, freedom to investigate terrorist activity without fear of overseas lawsuits in foreign courts! Please come meet with us this Tuesday, Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM in the Senate Minority Judiciary Conference room in Dirksen 152, to discuss the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (Senate Bill S.449) that will come before the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24 or sooner. The judiciary staffers of five Senators (Sessions, Coburn, Cornyn, Hatch, and Grassley) will be present, as will Dr. Paul Williams, one of the journalists who inspired the bill, plus Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's legal expert.
This is an extremely crucial bill, and is also newsworthy because it has truly bipartisan support, and is a bill all Senators can support, Democrats as well as Republicans. The Washington Post has written editorials in favor of the bill. We are meeting to see if we can get the four undecided Republican Senators (Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley) to get on board.
Please help us pass this important bill, which is vital to protect journalists who are exposing terrorist activity from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. Senator Sessions, the Ranking Member, and most of the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee are in favor of the bill. We need to get Republican Senators Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley on board as well. This is one bill that truly deserves bipartisan support! Please meet with us this coming Tuesday, Feb. 16. At 2:00PM. Thank you so much, Dr. Hugh Cort, (cell 205-213-5621). Please see more info about the bill below.
Dr. Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld have already met with the staffs of several other Senators, including Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Leahy, and others who are supporting the bill. I just learned from Dr. Ehrenfeld that Senator Sessions is backing the bill, which is great. I think it is still important to meet with Senator Sessions' judiciary staffer, and definitely the judiciary committee staffers of the four undecided Republican Senators to discuss the bill.
The Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (first proposed in Feb. of 2009) will protect authors and journalists such as Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld (and Joe Sharkey of the New York Times) who have been sued by people in foreign countries in the courts of those countries, under the laws of those countries, which often have no 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech as we have here in America. For example, Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote the book Funding Evil, about how Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia are funding Al Qaeda. Rachel was then sued by a wealthy Saudi businessman in England under British law that does not have free speech protection like we have here in America. The English court awarded him a big judgment against her. She then had to spend thousands of dollars in her home state of New York to fight the Saudi from getting her money. She succeeded in getting the State of New York to pass Rachel’s Law, which protects journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits. Now she wants to pass the Free Speech Protection Act to get such protection nationwide.
My friend and colleague, Dr. Paul Williams, wrote a book about Al Qaeda’s plans for a nuclear attack on America, in which he wrote about some terrorists who the FBI had spotted in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, including Adnan Shukrijumah, who FBI Director Robert Mueller has called, “the next Mohammed Atta”, the man Osama bin Laden has chosen to lead the next 9/11 against America (which may well be a nuclear attack). The terrorists were spotted near McMaster University, home of the largest research nuclear reactor in Canada, where several news reports came out that the terrorists had made off with some nuclear material. For writing about these news reports in his book, Dr. Williams was sued by McMaster University, which has a large number of Islamic students, and is heavily funded by wealthy Saudis. Dr. Williams has thus far had to spend over $50,000 of his own money to fight this lawsuit in Canada, which is being held under Canadian law (which does not protect freedom of speech), for writing a book in America!
If these lawsuits are allowed to have jurisdiction in America, it will have a very chilling effect on journalists who are trying to expose funders of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. However, if Senator Sessions and the other Senators pass the bill, American journalists will be allowed to investigate terrorism issues without fear of foreign lawsuits in foreign courts intimidating their research. In these perilous times, as you may well imagine, it is more important than ever to find out what is happening with terrorist groups!
Sincerely, Dr. Hugh Cort, President,
American Foundation for Counter-
Terrorism Policy and Research
For more information, see my interview with Dr. Paul Williams here. If you cannot attend the above meeting, please call, email, fax, your politicians and urge them to pass the Free Speech Protection Act.
Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com/
CAIR decision seen as victory over plan to 'chill' free speech
1:04 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Defense attorney Daniel Horowitz
A federal judge has dismissed an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to re-file a lawsuit against Air Force special agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the father-and-son team that investigated and exposed the group's terrorist ties.
Defense lawyers are hailing the decision as a victory over CAIR's alleged plan to "chill" free speech critical of the organization through an avalanche of court cases and legal costs.
"We briefed, counter-briefed, we spent thousands of dollars on the case," said Daniel Horowitz, one of the three lawyers for the defense. "Only then did they file this new lawsuit, which would have effectively forced us to start all over."
"But the new lawsuit didn't have anything substantively new," Horowitz told WND. "And yet, that's their whole goal. They know they can't win the case, but they can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge Saudi-funded CAIR. In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."
Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, "denied as moot" CAIR's request to re-file the case. CAIR now has until March 1 to re-file "an appropriate motion for leave to amend."
"The judge looked at papers and said, 'Look, you don't have a right to do this; everything was fully briefed; you had your opportunity,'" Horowitz explained.
"In terms of the First Amendment, it's a powerful ruling," Horowitz continued, "because it recognizes that by chilling free speech, you undermine it, even if you lose the case in the end. CAIR was trying to exploit that to the max, and the judge said no."
Please forgive my forwardness is asking you to share the following information or attend the meeting if possible Tuesday, February 16, 2010 in Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. You can read about it below:
Call to action for free speech
Subject: Free Speech for Journalists! Please meet Senate staffers on the Hill Feb. 16 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act
Please meet Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law.
Journalists, You can help get Freedom of Speech for all journalists, freedom to investigate terrorist activity without fear of overseas lawsuits in foreign courts! Please come meet with us this Tuesday, Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM in the Senate Minority Judiciary Conference room in Dirksen 152, to discuss the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (Senate Bill S.449) that will come before the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24 or sooner. The judiciary staffers of five Senators (Sessions, Coburn, Cornyn, Hatch, and Grassley) will be present, as will Dr. Paul Williams, one of the journalists who inspired the bill, plus Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's legal expert.
This is an extremely crucial bill, and is also newsworthy because it has truly bipartisan support, and is a bill all Senators can support, Democrats as well as Republicans. The Washington Post has written editorials in favor of the bill. We are meeting to see if we can get the four undecided Republican Senators (Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley) to get on board.
Please help us pass this important bill, which is vital to protect journalists who are exposing terrorist activity from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. Senator Sessions, the Ranking Member, and most of the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee are in favor of the bill. We need to get Republican Senators Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley on board as well. This is one bill that truly deserves bipartisan support! Please meet with us this coming Tuesday, Feb. 16. At 2:00PM. Thank you so much, Dr. Hugh Cort, (cell 205-213-5621). Please see more info about the bill below.
Dr. Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld have already met with the staffs of several other Senators, including Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Leahy, and others who are supporting the bill. I just learned from Dr. Ehrenfeld that Senator Sessions is backing the bill, which is great. I think it is still important to meet with Senator Sessions' judiciary staffer, and definitely the judiciary committee staffers of the four undecided Republican Senators to discuss the bill.
The Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (first proposed in Feb. of 2009) will protect authors and journalists such as Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld (and Joe Sharkey of the New York Times) who have been sued by people in foreign countries in the courts of those countries, under the laws of those countries, which often have no 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech as we have here in America. For example, Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote the book Funding Evil, about how Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia are funding Al Qaeda. Rachel was then sued by a wealthy Saudi businessman in England under British law that does not have free speech protection like we have here in America. The English court awarded him a big judgment against her. She then had to spend thousands of dollars in her home state of New York to fight the Saudi from getting her money. She succeeded in getting the State of New York to pass Rachel’s Law, which protects journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits. Now she wants to pass the Free Speech Protection Act to get such protection nationwide.
My friend and colleague, Dr. Paul Williams, wrote a book about Al Qaeda’s plans for a nuclear attack on America, in which he wrote about some terrorists who the FBI had spotted in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, including Adnan Shukrijumah, who FBI Director Robert Mueller has called, “the next Mohammed Atta”, the man Osama bin Laden has chosen to lead the next 9/11 against America (which may well be a nuclear attack). The terrorists were spotted near McMaster University, home of the largest research nuclear reactor in Canada, where several news reports came out that the terrorists had made off with some nuclear material. For writing about these news reports in his book, Dr. Williams was sued by McMaster University, which has a large number of Islamic students, and is heavily funded by wealthy Saudis. Dr. Williams has thus far had to spend over $50,000 of his own money to fight this lawsuit in Canada, which is being held under Canadian law (which does not protect freedom of speech), for writing a book in America!
If these lawsuits are allowed to have jurisdiction in America, it will have a very chilling effect on journalists who are trying to expose funders of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. However, if Senator Sessions and the other Senators pass the bill, American journalists will be allowed to investigate terrorism issues without fear of foreign lawsuits in foreign courts intimidating their research. In these perilous times, as you may well imagine, it is more important than ever to find out what is happening with terrorist groups!
Sincerely, Dr. Hugh Cort, President,
American Foundation for Counter-
Terrorism Policy and Research
For more information, see my interview with Dr. Paul Williams here. If you cannot attend the above meeting, please call, email, fax, your politicians and urge them to pass the Free Speech Protection Act.
Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com/
---------------------------------------------------
Federal judge rules against 'Muslim Mafia'CAIR decision seen as victory over plan to 'chill' free speech
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 20101:04 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Defense attorney Daniel Horowitz
A federal judge has dismissed an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to re-file a lawsuit against Air Force special agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the father-and-son team that investigated and exposed the group's terrorist ties.
Defense lawyers are hailing the decision as a victory over CAIR's alleged plan to "chill" free speech critical of the organization through an avalanche of court cases and legal costs.
"We briefed, counter-briefed, we spent thousands of dollars on the case," said Daniel Horowitz, one of the three lawyers for the defense. "Only then did they file this new lawsuit, which would have effectively forced us to start all over."
"But the new lawsuit didn't have anything substantively new," Horowitz told WND. "And yet, that's their whole goal. They know they can't win the case, but they can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge Saudi-funded CAIR. In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."
Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, "denied as moot" CAIR's request to re-file the case. CAIR now has until March 1 to re-file "an appropriate motion for leave to amend."
"The judge looked at papers and said, 'Look, you don't have a right to do this; everything was fully briefed; you had your opportunity,'" Horowitz explained.
"In terms of the First Amendment, it's a powerful ruling," Horowitz continued, "because it recognizes that by chilling free speech, you undermine it, even if you lose the case in the end. CAIR was trying to exploit that to the max, and the judge said no."
Sunday, February 14, 2010
FULL TEXT OF REQUEST FOR HEARING IN 20-DAYS!
Dr. Orly Taitz, esq
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §
Plaintiff, §HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH
§ PRESIDING
v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § APPLICATION FOR
§
§ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
§
§ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
§
Defendant. §
Notice of Application For Preliminary Injunction pursuant to LCvR 65.1 (c), LCvR 65.1 (d)
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney’s office from representing the defendant.
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary injunction- Injunctive relief 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 CA Bar.
Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction hearing within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1st.
Memorandum of point and authorities
The only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. “Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office”. Clinton v Jones, 520 US 681 (1977). Decision was made based on Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
Background of the Case and Factual Allegations
1. Plaintiff in this case is Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, (hereinafter Taitz) who is a CA licensed Attorney and also a licensed Doctor of Dental Surgery. She is the president of the “Defend our Freedoms” Foundation, that seeks to educate the citizenry about the Constitutional freedoms, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and guaranteed to us all. She was born and raised in the Communist Soviet Union and was able to see first hand the social devastation, caused by lack of guaranteed Constitutional freedoms and liberties.
2. Defendant is Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States (Hereinafter Obama).
3. Taitz alleges that she has a unique standing to bring this case as she suffered unique damages and she was the harmed by the actions of the defendant.
4. Prior to the 2008 election Taitz became concerned regarding Obama’s refusal to unseal any of his original vital records, that would prove his eligibility to office.
5. Taitz has written to the CA secretary of State Debra Bowen, asking which documents she checked to ascertain Obama’s eligibility.
6. Bowen responded by stating that she did not check anything, but rather relied on Obama’s statement that he is eligible.
7. Taitz has related this finding with fellow voters through an article published in Westminster Herald and through public appearances.
8. Taitz argued that hypothetically speaking, utilizing such lack of zeal in verifying credentials, anyone can become the president, even Osama Bin Ladin can hypothetically become a president if he was to put his name on the ballot and have several hundred million for the campaign.
9. Taitz filed two legal actions prior to the meeting of the electoral college. Those actions were filed on behalf of the Presidential candidate from the American Independent party former UN Economics and Cultural Commission Ambassador Alan Keyes and vice presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot.
10. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear Lightfoot v Bowen in the conference of all nine justices on 01.23.09.
11. On 01.21.09, one day after the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, all mention of Lightfoot v Bowen by attorney Taitz was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court. After numerous complaints from the public the case was re-entered in the docket, however subsequently when Taitz asked one of the Justices, Justice Scalia about the case, he had no knowledge of existence of this case. Taitz has filed a complaint and demanded investigati! on, but received no answer from law enforcement.
12. After the 2008 election over 200 members of the US military with ranks up to Major General, a number of state Representatives and others have signed up to be plaintiffs represented by Taitz in seeking verification of eligibility of Obama to be president.
13. Taitz has filed a number of legal actions seeking verification of eligibility. Most of the cases were dismissed when the judges claimed that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing and the courts lacked jurisdiction.
14. There were some 100 Federal and State cases filed by pro se plaintiffs and other attorneys, all of which were dismissed on procedural grounds due to lack of standing or jurisdiction
15. Twelve citizen grand juries have come up with indictments or presentments of Obama, as ineligible, however no law enforcement official or judge would assert jurisdiction.
16. Obama has refused to unseal any of his original vital records. No one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, college application records, financial aid forms or his medical records.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Chiuomi Fukino, Hawaiian director of the Health Department has prepared a carefully crafted statement, claiming that Obama’s vital records, currently sealed in Hawaii, were valid. She refused to provide any explanation, what birth certificate was on file: was it one base on Statute 338-17, on based on 338-5, was it an amended birth certificate obtained after Obama, was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, was it a late birth certificate, obtained after the original was los! t or destroyed. In all of these instances Obama would have a valid document based on Hawaiian rules and regulations, but not a sufficient verification of Hawaiian birth. In July 2009 Taitz represented Major Stefan Cook in Cook v Good, 4:2009 cv82 in front of Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus GA. In September of 2009 she represented a flight surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes in Rhodes v McDonald in front of the same Judge Clay D Land.
20. In both cases members of the military were supposed to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and they were questioning the deployment orders coming from Obama down the chain of command, as they didn’t believe those orders were legitimate.
21. After becoming a plaintiff and legitimately seeking verification of Obama’s eligibility Major Cook was subjected to retaliation whereby his employer, a small military contractor was pressured by the military to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year job.
22. After investigator Sankey compiled a database for Taitz, showing that some 39 different social security numbers were used by Obama, he was subjected to audit by Lexis Nexis.
23.When former immigration officer and private investigator John Sampson has provided Taitz information showing Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425 issued in CT, he was locked out of LocatePlus search database in retaliation for his Obama search, which affected his livelihood as investigator.
24. When police officer, Mr. Ronald Dishler from Beaumont, TX cooperated with Taitz and attempted to investigate suspected forgery in Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, he was threatened with investigation against him, officer Dischler.
25. In Georgia Presiding judge Clay D. Land tried to intimidate Taitz and stop her from filing any more legal actions against Obama by threatening $10,000 sanctions if she files any more legal actions on behalf of members of the military against Obama.
26.When Taitz filed a motion for stay of deployment of her client Captain Connie Rhodes, pending re-consideration of her case, Judge Land has assessed $20,000 against her and has written a denigrating order.
27.Order from Judge Land was forwarded to the CA bar and her answer is due by February 26.
28.Members of CA bar are predominantly Democrats and among largest donors and supporters to Obama campaign and Democratic National Campaign. Taitz has a legitimate concern that CA bar will be used as a tool for retaliation against her, particularly in light of recent wrongful disbarment and imprisonment of former Assistant US attorney, community activist and antitrust constitutional lawyer Richard Fine.
29.Taitz clearly became a dissident against Obama regime and her license, her livelihood, well being of her family and, judging by the case of Richard Fine, her very freedom is at stake.
28.Additionally she saw a group of convicted criminals, convicted document forgers, who appear to be working in concert, submitting perjured affidavits, forging her signature in order to derail her cases and endanger her license.
30. There is a clear concerted effort to destroy her legal actions, undermine her law license and destroy her as a human being.
31.Such attacks were unrelenting, coming from each and every direction not by the hour, but by the minute. The attacks have risen to the level of hate crimes. Pro Obama ‘main stream media” has covered her by a barrage of insults, assaults and harassment.
32. After she received a threat to kill her and burn her body for the whole world to see, there was a warning signal in her car. Test by a mechanic showed that the fumes emissions hose was disconnected and hot combustable fumes were going back to the engine which was a dangerous condition for her and her family riding in the car.
33.At the same time Obama has given speeches about civility, telling the audience, such as theologists at the National prayer breakfast that there is a need for civility, and there should be no questioning of his citizenship. He conveniently forgot to mention to the audience, his refusal to unseal his original vital records or his use of multiple social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided.
34.All Obama had to do, was take one minute of his time and sign a consent to unseal his vital records, yet he has chosen to continue to obfuscate all of his vital records and either orchestrate or at least stay idle, showing reckless disregard to mental anguish Taitz was subjected to, showing more then lack of civility, it showed totally depraved heart.
Preliminary injunctive relief sought
Plaintiff re-alleges in this paragraph everything alleged previously and also alleges the following:
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 Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release his birthing (birth or labor and delivery) file from Kapiolani Hospital by February 26, 2010.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all of his passport applications.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his Social Security application and explain why Social Security number, used by him for most of his life, and used for registering for the Selective Service shows 042- the code of the State of CT, even though the defendant never resided there, and why this number shows as being assigned to an individual born in 1890, even though the defendant was not born in 1890 and is not 120 years old.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to provide an explanation by February 26, why National databases Choice Point and Lexis –Nexis show him using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing Mr. Michael Astrue. Director of the Social Security administration, to provide by February 26 an original Social Security application for Barack Hussein Obama and an explanation why is he using a Social Security number issued in the state of Ct, to an individual born in 1890, even though the Defendant never resided in the state of CT and was not born in 1890, as well as access to the original Social Security application of the defendant to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court to direct the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to release by February 26 defendant’s passport application and an access to such application to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.
Injunctive relief is necessary, as monetary damages will not resolve the conflict at hand. Only specific performance will provide the information needed. There is no other source, where such information can be obtained.
Hardship on the defendant is minimal. All that is required from the defendant is one minute of his time to sign a consent for the release of his vital records, that are routinely released by candidates for political office and would simply confirm information alleged by Obama. Those records do not represent prying into personal life and definitely would represent less interference and less disclosure then was experienced by President Clinton in Clinton v Jones, when such disclosure was allowed by the courts.
The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not ordered. Her career, law license and her whole life will be in turmoil.
When one compares the weight of hardships on both parties, the hardship on the plaintiff greatly outweighs the hardship on the defendant.
Requested Injunctive relief is in the interest of the public at large as legitimacy of the president affects the public. An illegitimate president represents danger to the National Security and well- being of the country as a whole.
The system of justice will benefit, as it will show that no one is above the law, that there is no two tier system, where the bottom tier has to abide by the laws and the constitution and the top tier can arrogantly disregard and disrespect them.
Based on all of the above equitable relief of production of all the requested vital records will be a proper and necessary remedy.
Necessity of recusal of the US attorney’s office is in the best interest of all of the parties and all of the parties and the public will benefit from such recusal .
In case the US attorney’s office is not recused and it is found that the defendant has committed federal criminal offences, the same US attorney’s office will be prosecuting him, which will deny him fair trial.
If the US attorney is not recused, due to apparent conflict of interest the plaintiff will be denied access to evidence, as granting such access will create conflict of interest with the defendant as a client of the US attorney‘s office.
Lastly the public will be in detriment and damaged without such recusal, as the main purpose and function of the US attorney’s office is to represent the United States of America and the people of the United States of America. In case the defendant is committing fraud, there will be a conflict of interest between him and the public at large, the public will not be represented which will cause irreparable harm to the public.
Any hardship associated with the recusal, is minimal and nominal. If the defendant is not committing fraud, then all he needs to do, is take a minute of his time to sign the consent for release of a few vital records and the plaintiff will be happy to pay the $12 customary fee for the certified copies as well as for the analysis with the forensic document examiner, if needed.
Based on all of the above, all of the parties to the dispute will benefit from the recusal, and it will be in the best interest of public at large.
Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court to grant her application for injunctive relief as stated above.
/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §
Plaintiff, §HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH
§ PRESIDING
v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § APPLICATION FOR
§
§ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
§
§ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
§
Defendant. §
Notice of Application For Preliminary Injunction pursuant to LCvR 65.1 (c), LCvR 65.1 (d)
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney’s office from representing the defendant.
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary injunction- Injunctive relief 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 CA Bar.
Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction hearing within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1st.
Memorandum of point and authorities
The only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. “Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office”. Clinton v Jones, 520 US 681 (1977). Decision was made based on Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
Background of the Case and Factual Allegations
1. Plaintiff in this case is Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, (hereinafter Taitz) who is a CA licensed Attorney and also a licensed Doctor of Dental Surgery. She is the president of the “Defend our Freedoms” Foundation, that seeks to educate the citizenry about the Constitutional freedoms, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and guaranteed to us all. She was born and raised in the Communist Soviet Union and was able to see first hand the social devastation, caused by lack of guaranteed Constitutional freedoms and liberties.
2. Defendant is Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States (Hereinafter Obama).
3. Taitz alleges that she has a unique standing to bring this case as she suffered unique damages and she was the harmed by the actions of the defendant.
4. Prior to the 2008 election Taitz became concerned regarding Obama’s refusal to unseal any of his original vital records, that would prove his eligibility to office.
5. Taitz has written to the CA secretary of State Debra Bowen, asking which documents she checked to ascertain Obama’s eligibility.
6. Bowen responded by stating that she did not check anything, but rather relied on Obama’s statement that he is eligible.
7. Taitz has related this finding with fellow voters through an article published in Westminster Herald and through public appearances.
8. Taitz argued that hypothetically speaking, utilizing such lack of zeal in verifying credentials, anyone can become the president, even Osama Bin Ladin can hypothetically become a president if he was to put his name on the ballot and have several hundred million for the campaign.
9. Taitz filed two legal actions prior to the meeting of the electoral college. Those actions were filed on behalf of the Presidential candidate from the American Independent party former UN Economics and Cultural Commission Ambassador Alan Keyes and vice presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot.
10. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear Lightfoot v Bowen in the conference of all nine justices on 01.23.09.
11. On 01.21.09, one day after the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, all mention of Lightfoot v Bowen by attorney Taitz was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court. After numerous complaints from the public the case was re-entered in the docket, however subsequently when Taitz asked one of the Justices, Justice Scalia about the case, he had no knowledge of existence of this case. Taitz has filed a complaint and demanded investigati! on, but received no answer from law enforcement.
12. After the 2008 election over 200 members of the US military with ranks up to Major General, a number of state Representatives and others have signed up to be plaintiffs represented by Taitz in seeking verification of eligibility of Obama to be president.
13. Taitz has filed a number of legal actions seeking verification of eligibility. Most of the cases were dismissed when the judges claimed that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing and the courts lacked jurisdiction.
14. There were some 100 Federal and State cases filed by pro se plaintiffs and other attorneys, all of which were dismissed on procedural grounds due to lack of standing or jurisdiction
15. Twelve citizen grand juries have come up with indictments or presentments of Obama, as ineligible, however no law enforcement official or judge would assert jurisdiction.
16. Obama has refused to unseal any of his original vital records. No one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, college application records, financial aid forms or his medical records.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Chiuomi Fukino, Hawaiian director of the Health Department has prepared a carefully crafted statement, claiming that Obama’s vital records, currently sealed in Hawaii, were valid. She refused to provide any explanation, what birth certificate was on file: was it one base on Statute 338-17, on based on 338-5, was it an amended birth certificate obtained after Obama, was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, was it a late birth certificate, obtained after the original was los! t or destroyed. In all of these instances Obama would have a valid document based on Hawaiian rules and regulations, but not a sufficient verification of Hawaiian birth. In July 2009 Taitz represented Major Stefan Cook in Cook v Good, 4:2009 cv82 in front of Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus GA. In September of 2009 she represented a flight surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes in Rhodes v McDonald in front of the same Judge Clay D Land.
20. In both cases members of the military were supposed to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and they were questioning the deployment orders coming from Obama down the chain of command, as they didn’t believe those orders were legitimate.
21. After becoming a plaintiff and legitimately seeking verification of Obama’s eligibility Major Cook was subjected to retaliation whereby his employer, a small military contractor was pressured by the military to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year job.
22. After investigator Sankey compiled a database for Taitz, showing that some 39 different social security numbers were used by Obama, he was subjected to audit by Lexis Nexis.
23.When former immigration officer and private investigator John Sampson has provided Taitz information showing Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425 issued in CT, he was locked out of LocatePlus search database in retaliation for his Obama search, which affected his livelihood as investigator.
24. When police officer, Mr. Ronald Dishler from Beaumont, TX cooperated with Taitz and attempted to investigate suspected forgery in Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, he was threatened with investigation against him, officer Dischler.
25. In Georgia Presiding judge Clay D. Land tried to intimidate Taitz and stop her from filing any more legal actions against Obama by threatening $10,000 sanctions if she files any more legal actions on behalf of members of the military against Obama.
26.When Taitz filed a motion for stay of deployment of her client Captain Connie Rhodes, pending re-consideration of her case, Judge Land has assessed $20,000 against her and has written a denigrating order.
27.Order from Judge Land was forwarded to the CA bar and her answer is due by February 26.
28.Members of CA bar are predominantly Democrats and among largest donors and supporters to Obama campaign and Democratic National Campaign. Taitz has a legitimate concern that CA bar will be used as a tool for retaliation against her, particularly in light of recent wrongful disbarment and imprisonment of former Assistant US attorney, community activist and antitrust constitutional lawyer Richard Fine.
29.Taitz clearly became a dissident against Obama regime and her license, her livelihood, well being of her family and, judging by the case of Richard Fine, her very freedom is at stake.
28.Additionally she saw a group of convicted criminals, convicted document forgers, who appear to be working in concert, submitting perjured affidavits, forging her signature in order to derail her cases and endanger her license.
30. There is a clear concerted effort to destroy her legal actions, undermine her law license and destroy her as a human being.
31.Such attacks were unrelenting, coming from each and every direction not by the hour, but by the minute. The attacks have risen to the level of hate crimes. Pro Obama ‘main stream media” has covered her by a barrage of insults, assaults and harassment.
32. After she received a threat to kill her and burn her body for the whole world to see, there was a warning signal in her car. Test by a mechanic showed that the fumes emissions hose was disconnected and hot combustable fumes were going back to the engine which was a dangerous condition for her and her family riding in the car.
33.At the same time Obama has given speeches about civility, telling the audience, such as theologists at the National prayer breakfast that there is a need for civility, and there should be no questioning of his citizenship. He conveniently forgot to mention to the audience, his refusal to unseal his original vital records or his use of multiple social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided.
34.All Obama had to do, was take one minute of his time and sign a consent to unseal his vital records, yet he has chosen to continue to obfuscate all of his vital records and either orchestrate or at least stay idle, showing reckless disregard to mental anguish Taitz was subjected to, showing more then lack of civility, it showed totally depraved heart.
Preliminary injunctive relief sought
Plaintiff re-alleges in this paragraph everything alleged previously and also alleges the following:
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 Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release his birthing (birth or labor and delivery) file from Kapiolani Hospital by February 26, 2010.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all of his passport applications.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his Social Security application and explain why Social Security number, used by him for most of his life, and used for registering for the Selective Service shows 042- the code of the State of CT, even though the defendant never resided there, and why this number shows as being assigned to an individual born in 1890, even though the defendant was not born in 1890 and is not 120 years old.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to provide an explanation by February 26, why National databases Choice Point and Lexis –Nexis show him using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing Mr. Michael Astrue. Director of the Social Security administration, to provide by February 26 an original Social Security application for Barack Hussein Obama and an explanation why is he using a Social Security number issued in the state of Ct, to an individual born in 1890, even though the Defendant never resided in the state of CT and was not born in 1890, as well as access to the original Social Security application of the defendant to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court to direct the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to release by February 26 defendant’s passport application and an access to such application to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.
Injunctive relief is necessary, as monetary damages will not resolve the conflict at hand. Only specific performance will provide the information needed. There is no other source, where such information can be obtained.
Hardship on the defendant is minimal. All that is required from the defendant is one minute of his time to sign a consent for the release of his vital records, that are routinely released by candidates for political office and would simply confirm information alleged by Obama. Those records do not represent prying into personal life and definitely would represent less interference and less disclosure then was experienced by President Clinton in Clinton v Jones, when such disclosure was allowed by the courts.
The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not ordered. Her career, law license and her whole life will be in turmoil.
When one compares the weight of hardships on both parties, the hardship on the plaintiff greatly outweighs the hardship on the defendant.
Requested Injunctive relief is in the interest of the public at large as legitimacy of the president affects the public. An illegitimate president represents danger to the National Security and well- being of the country as a whole.
The system of justice will benefit, as it will show that no one is above the law, that there is no two tier system, where the bottom tier has to abide by the laws and the constitution and the top tier can arrogantly disregard and disrespect them.
Based on all of the above equitable relief of production of all the requested vital records will be a proper and necessary remedy.
Necessity of recusal of the US attorney’s office is in the best interest of all of the parties and all of the parties and the public will benefit from such recusal .
In case the US attorney’s office is not recused and it is found that the defendant has committed federal criminal offences, the same US attorney’s office will be prosecuting him, which will deny him fair trial.
If the US attorney is not recused, due to apparent conflict of interest the plaintiff will be denied access to evidence, as granting such access will create conflict of interest with the defendant as a client of the US attorney‘s office.
Lastly the public will be in detriment and damaged without such recusal, as the main purpose and function of the US attorney’s office is to represent the United States of America and the people of the United States of America. In case the defendant is committing fraud, there will be a conflict of interest between him and the public at large, the public will not be represented which will cause irreparable harm to the public.
Any hardship associated with the recusal, is minimal and nominal. If the defendant is not committing fraud, then all he needs to do, is take a minute of his time to sign the consent for release of a few vital records and the plaintiff will be happy to pay the $12 customary fee for the certified copies as well as for the analysis with the forensic document examiner, if needed.
Based on all of the above, all of the parties to the dispute will benefit from the recusal, and it will be in the best interest of public at large.
Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court to grant her application for injunctive relief as stated above.
/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Saturday, February 6, 2010
OBA-HUSSEIN WAKE UP!! AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY WAKE UP!!
AMERICA WAKE UP!
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO US WITH YOUR "OBAMA DESTROY AMERICA" VOTES???
Offered by Michael Ledeen
It’s from Sueddeutsche Zeitung, citing a “new IAEA summary.” The article is in German. Here’s a translation:
“Iran has developed a nuclear warhead, according to an article in the German newspaper “Sueddeutsche Zeitung”. A foreigner alleged to have helped Iran towards developing nuclear weapons is from the former Soviet Union…The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has already mentioned the employment of a foreigner in the nuclear programme.
Quoting a new IAEA summary, the Suddeutsche said the scientist had previously worked in a Soviet nuclear weapons laboratory on advanced warheads. It said both western intelligence services and diplomats had confirmed the connection.
The newspaper added that Iran was trying to make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit into one of its Shahab 3 medium-range missiles and was designing a so-called two-point implosion system, which requires only two simultaneously exploding detonators to trigger a nuclear blast.
The former Soviet scientist was an expert on the high-speed cameras needed to test if both detonations were symmetrical, and had worked for Iran from the mid-1990s till 2000.
Somebody better tell Director of National Intelligence Blair, who testified this week that the Iranian regime had not yet decided to produce nuclear weapons.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO US WITH YOUR "OBAMA DESTROY AMERICA" VOTES???
Offered by Michael Ledeen
It’s from Sueddeutsche Zeitung, citing a “new IAEA summary.” The article is in German. Here’s a translation:
“Iran has developed a nuclear warhead, according to an article in the German newspaper “Sueddeutsche Zeitung”. A foreigner alleged to have helped Iran towards developing nuclear weapons is from the former Soviet Union…The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has already mentioned the employment of a foreigner in the nuclear programme.
Quoting a new IAEA summary, the Suddeutsche said the scientist had previously worked in a Soviet nuclear weapons laboratory on advanced warheads. It said both western intelligence services and diplomats had confirmed the connection.
The newspaper added that Iran was trying to make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit into one of its Shahab 3 medium-range missiles and was designing a so-called two-point implosion system, which requires only two simultaneously exploding detonators to trigger a nuclear blast.
The former Soviet scientist was an expert on the high-speed cameras needed to test if both detonations were symmetrical, and had worked for Iran from the mid-1990s till 2000.
Somebody better tell Director of National Intelligence Blair, who testified this week that the Iranian regime had not yet decided to produce nuclear weapons.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
ISLAMIC IRAN REGIME WEEDING OUT MORE CLERICAL DISSENTERS
Grand Ayatollah Montazeri
(recently deceased)
Iran arrests Montazeri linked cleric.
TEHERAN - IRAN has arrested a cleric close to late dissident Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri amid a fresh crackdown on opposition supporters, a reformist website reported on Friday.
Mid-ranking cleric 'Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Taghi Khalaji was arrested at his home in the city of Qom on Tuesday,' Norooznews said.
'The cause of his arrest is not known yet but he had on several occasions backed protests against election results' which saw President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad returned for a second term amid allegations of massive fraud. The website described Khalaji as being close to Montazeri and Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Sanei, both strong supporters of the opposition.
Thousands of opposition supporters poured into streets of the city of Qom during Montazeri's December funeral. Since Montazeri passed away in December aged 87, Sanei has come under mounting pressure by hardliners. The website said Khalaji was also a regular speaker at Tehran's Dar-ol-Zahra, a religious venue run by reformists.
The detained cleric's son, Mehdi Khalaji, is a senior research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and two members of the US House of Representatives condemned the arrest.
'The regime's intimidation and imprisonment of clerics critical of the current government must cease at once,' Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman said in a statement. 'We are deeply concerned by reports that the Iranian regime has arrested Ayatollah... Khalaji and confiscated both his and his family's personal possessions and passports, thereby preventing them from leaving Iran,' they added. -- AFP
Monday, January 11, 2010
EXPOSING TERROR SUPPORTER IN CHIEF?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, § REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § MOTION FOR LEAVE OF
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate, § WARRANTO
Defendants. §
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”. The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options: A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received. Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? - Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
III. Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
IV. Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
V. Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
VI. Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
VII. Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
VIII. Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
IX. Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
X. To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”. The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen.
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president.
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another. The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Orly Taitz, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
/s/Orly Taitz
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, § REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § MOTION FOR LEAVE OF
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate, § WARRANTO
Defendants. §
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”. The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options: A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received. Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? - Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
III. Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
IV. Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
V. Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
VI. Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
VII. Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
VIII. Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
IX. Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
X. To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”. The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen.
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president.
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another. The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Orly Taitz, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
/s/Orly Taitz
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Friday, December 25, 2009
SUED FOR TERROR WATCHING
‘Sued for Terror Watching’
http://theromangate.wordpress.com/‘sued-for-terror-watching’-an-appeal-for-dr-bruce-tefft/
Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center.
Dr.Bruce Tefft retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.
Dr. Tefft has been sued as a co-defendant along with the NYPD for workplace harassment because he sent emails detailing the threat of radical Islamic terrorism to police officers who voluntarily received them.
So we are going to support him, if you might send a suggested $5.00 or any amount you estimate appropriate to Bruce’s legal defense fund.
Here is the address for sending anything you can:
Bruce Tefft Legal Defense Fund
Jerry S. Goldman
ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 - Philadelphia, PA 19103
T: 267-216-2795 - F: 215-568-4573
http://theromangate.wordpress.com/‘sued-for-terror-watching’-an-appeal-for-dr-bruce-tefft/
Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center.
Dr.Bruce Tefft retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.
Dr. Tefft has been sued as a co-defendant along with the NYPD for workplace harassment because he sent emails detailing the threat of radical Islamic terrorism to police officers who voluntarily received them.
So we are going to support him, if you might send a suggested $5.00 or any amount you estimate appropriate to Bruce’s legal defense fund.
Here is the address for sending anything you can:
Bruce Tefft Legal Defense Fund
Jerry S. Goldman
ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 - Philadelphia, PA 19103
T: 267-216-2795 - F: 215-568-4573
Sunday, December 20, 2009
PAY OR DIE!
Jeyzia (tax by Moslems on non-Moslems to permit them to stay alive) Demands in Copenhagen - "If you fail to comply, and we will find out, we will have to initiate the next step, which will be disabling a family member. Second step, if necessary, will be more fatal"
Text of blackmail/extortion letter sent to every resident in this small town near Copenhagen, Denmark.
,,For some time we have kept you under our scope. You are blessed with a lovely family and we hope you appreciate this fortune of live, nothing is static. We apologize for the poorly chosen time of approach (Your holy month), and will respectfully keep a distance whilst you and your family enjoys your RR.
Our lives may sometimes turn down a road we didn´t foresee, on some occasions we can change this course, on others we can´t.
Your live is about to take such a turn, and it is up to you if you want to get back on track, entirely up to you, we might add!
In our country, we are so familiar to changes, radical changes, so we know what we are talking about. Your part of the world have exploited us for centuries (not you personally though), so in all fairness it would be appropriate if you lend a helping hand.
For some reason we can´t get your government to take appropriate course of action, hence this solution.
We are civilized people, although you may think otherwise, but in order to be taken seriously, we have to stand by our terms and statements. For this purpose, we have hired ,,local contractors#, surprisingly easy in Denmark, who will carry out the more uncivilized part, let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
In short we request you to deliver 215.000,- Danish Kroner ( can be converted into USD or Pound Sterling), details will follow later on. We will give you 6 weeks from today´s date. The amount will not break you financially, we know, and we never use the same beneficial twice.
Obviously there are certain rules, simple ones.
- Do not share this with anyone or anybody.
- Meet our terms promptly.
If you fail to comply, and we will find out, we will have to initiate the next step, which will be disabling a family member (by customary acid in the face?).
Second step, if necessary, will be more fatal.
There is no room for negotiation or second chance.
Once we press the red button, others will take over.
The people who will carry out this task do not know us and we do not know them.
Due to the way they are getting paid, they will perform, trust us!
We hope you will take this seriously, we have nothing to lose.
We will get back to you shortly.
Regards,”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/jiyza-demands-in-copenhagan-if-you-fail-to-comply-and-we-will-find-out-we-will-have-to-initiate-the-.html
Text of blackmail/extortion letter sent to every resident in this small town near Copenhagen, Denmark.
,,For some time we have kept you under our scope. You are blessed with a lovely family and we hope you appreciate this fortune of live, nothing is static. We apologize for the poorly chosen time of approach (Your holy month), and will respectfully keep a distance whilst you and your family enjoys your RR.
Our lives may sometimes turn down a road we didn´t foresee, on some occasions we can change this course, on others we can´t.
Your live is about to take such a turn, and it is up to you if you want to get back on track, entirely up to you, we might add!
In our country, we are so familiar to changes, radical changes, so we know what we are talking about. Your part of the world have exploited us for centuries (not you personally though), so in all fairness it would be appropriate if you lend a helping hand.
For some reason we can´t get your government to take appropriate course of action, hence this solution.
We are civilized people, although you may think otherwise, but in order to be taken seriously, we have to stand by our terms and statements. For this purpose, we have hired ,,local contractors#, surprisingly easy in Denmark, who will carry out the more uncivilized part, let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
In short we request you to deliver 215.000,- Danish Kroner ( can be converted into USD or Pound Sterling), details will follow later on. We will give you 6 weeks from today´s date. The amount will not break you financially, we know, and we never use the same beneficial twice.
Obviously there are certain rules, simple ones.
- Do not share this with anyone or anybody.
- Meet our terms promptly.
If you fail to comply, and we will find out, we will have to initiate the next step, which will be disabling a family member (by customary acid in the face?).
Second step, if necessary, will be more fatal.
There is no room for negotiation or second chance.
Once we press the red button, others will take over.
The people who will carry out this task do not know us and we do not know them.
Due to the way they are getting paid, they will perform, trust us!
We hope you will take this seriously, we have nothing to lose.
We will get back to you shortly.
Regards,”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/jiyza-demands-in-copenhagan-if-you-fail-to-comply-and-we-will-find-out-we-will-have-to-initiate-the-.html
Saturday, December 19, 2009
TRANSCRIPT TRANSLATION OF REPENTANT BASSIJI IN LONDON
A defecting member of the infamous Basij militia, the men who wounded and killed in the aftermath of the Iran elections in the summer, talks to Lindsey Hilsum about what he witnessed.
"I've lost my world and I've lost my religion" - the words of a former Iranian Basij militia member who says he witnessed killings and tried to stop rapes during the uprising that followed the disputed Presidential election in June.
After months of stories by witnesses and victims, we are now getting a picture of what went on by a man who claims he was part of the group ordered to carry out attacks.
He is now seeking refuge in the UK and has spoken exclusively to Channel 4 News about the orders the Basij were given to ensure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election.
In her blog, Lindsey Hilsum wrote: "Maybe the most convincing authentification we have is that his story confirms the reports we've had from victims and human rights groups, who say rape has been used all over Iran in the brutal months since the June election. That and his desperation. Rarely have I interviewed someone so distressed."
Lindsey Hilsum's report contains flash photography.
Election orders
"In truth the orders didn't come after the election. The orders for all that you witnessed came before the election.
"We were prepared. But we didn't ever imagine that people’s actions would be so great. We had received orders regarding student activities.
"From three or four months before the election we had attended classes on ideological and political thought and crowd control.
"We knew what we had to do but nothing prepared us for what we saw. There were severe clashes in the first few days, and so new orders were given for forthcoming days."
Religious dilemma
"I'm in complete turmoil all the time. I spent more than twenty years raised like this, and before me a household of martyrs. I keep thinking, which is right?
What I’ve chosen now, or the path they've taken.
"Our family is no small undertaking. It has many martyrs. My uncle was martyred with Mr D, Mr AHD.
"We are a prominent religious family - always there on the frontline, always with memories of war, frontline and revolution. Since these events I keep thinking, who is right?"
Election build-up
"From three or four months before I had a social undertaking, preparing to see how people would encounter the elections, the level of attendance - would it be well received, do they believe in it, do they think something could still be done?
"It was going well even though they spoke of Khatami (reformist former president) coming, and then he wasn't coming. All this created excitement.
People came with genuine enthusiasm.
"We got various statistics and analysed them. We wanted to get an idea of what the mode of clashes would be.
"When the campaigns began the excitement reached a new height.
“We had received orders a matter of months before that there is jurisprudence, that there is the jurisprudence of the Imam Zaman, (the 13th Imam, who is expected to return like a Messiah) whose incarnation is Ayatollah Khamenei, and that he had announced that for the advancement and development of Islam and the development of the revolution no-one could be more effective than Mr. Ahmadinejad.
"Therefore the order came that Mr Khamenei has him in mind, that Mr Khamenei has Mr Ahmadinejad in mind for the presidency and so he must be announced as the winner.
"It's he who is best suited to this revolution, order and Velayat Faqih (Iranian system of Islamic jurisprudence)"
"Scary and horrifying"
"I was extremely taken aback. How can I explain? This is someone who I couldn't even entertain a conflicting thought against.
"It was truly a scary and horrifying scenario to go against wishes or opinion, especially if that opinion belongs to the Supreme Leader or that of the Velayat Faqih, for you to express a personal opinion.
"It was a terrible situation. On the one side I saw the people and on the other there was the order."
Ballot box fraud
"The answers to your questions go back to before the elections. In the private meeting we had for those responsible for the ballot boxes, including my brother and me, it was made clear.
"The orders were announced as to how everything would be conducted on the day of the election. We were among those responsible for the ballot boxes."
Role of the Basij
"I don't know how much you know about the Basij but it is an extremely vast organ, much more extensive than you would imagine.
"Although you may think that it is without formal organisation, it is in fact very precise and extremely organised with sophisticated planning and everything is specified.
"When an order is received, or when the Supreme Leader has announced his opinion, well, Mr D is the spokesman of the leader and we are Mr D's spokespeople.
"The foundations of Islam and the foundations of Shi'ism and Velayat are such that we have accepted the Velayat. When the Velayat has an opinion, everyone's opinion must follow, because if it's outside of this there is no place for you. You're an outsider.
"He [Khamenei] makes his announcement and Mr D translates this in the form of advice and discussion.
"Everything has a hierarchy. It doesn't call for Mr Khamenei to come and directly make an announcement to the soldiers, when I say soldier, I, or we, saw ourselves as soldiers of the Imam Zaman.
"He doesn't need to come and make his announcement to the forces directly, he expresses his opinion and according to the hierarchical system, the news will reach those who need to hear it.
"Mr D's opinion is an absolute obedience of the Supreme Leader. We've been told this in meetings.
"In the private meeting I mentioned to you, the commanders of the Sepah (Revolutionary Guard) were present as well as those of various Basij units from different areas.
"It was imperative to have the leader's vision, and it was announced then that his vision is this, that he elects Ahmadinejad."
Election fraud
"For us who were responsible for the ballot boxes the order was this: that Aqa's [Khamenei's] wish is for Ahmadinejad to win.
"For illiterate people and those not able to complete their ballots, you must do so for them and complete them accordingly (for Ahmadinejad), no matter who their vote was intended for.
"Same with blank votes. In the counting the blank votes wouldn't be announced as void.
"They [the illiterate] were generally made up of elderly men and women - and they are great believers in the mosque community and religious matters and areas where there is a lower literacy rate like the villages or areas of the big cities."
Youth vote suppressed
"Our problem was the young people and university students, we had prepared for the others.
"Well they [the students] weren't around for the count. When they left, how can I say, I'm very ashamed now, but they just came up to the box and then left.
"After the voting was over it was only us who were there. We were honest in that the command was followed.
"When the voting was over, the boxes were opened, but not all of them.
"A few were opened and counted, then we received another order to send the boxes to the main centre."
Stopping the protests
"Because a reaction was expected, we had been ordered from before the election for all security forces to be ready for the following day.
"They told us to come early for group prayers. We went along with others who'd been invited. Prayers took place. This was followed by a short speech confirming Mr Ahmadinejad's victory and the congratulations in order.
"Sweets and pastries were offered and the forces were organised into two shifts.
"There were areas that had been previously noted as problem areas - we called them the red points - where security presence was essential.
"These were announced, the shifts were determined and everyone was deployed. It was early.
"We had set out very early before anyone could get started. Everyone took their positions and were armed.
"The command was that we were to prevent any gathering of people to take shape.
Violent suppression
"Any hint of protest was to be firmly supressed. If anything occured, to attack.
"Attacking people meant nothing. As I told you, anyone who thought differently to Ayatollah Khamenei and outside of the Velayat Faqih was considered an outsider.
"Therefore his protest has no place, therefore his opinion and protest is meaningless.
"It was simple. It was not for us to think anything of them - both voters and protesters.
"In our view, it was not a protest against the issue but a protest against Ayatollah Khamenei himself.
"And it's just not comprehensible to us that someone should want to question him. He is our guide."
Controlling the city
"On that day in this area there were batons, and cables that coil and extend easily. If it attaches to someone's hand and you pull it you can do serious harm.
"Sprays like pepper sprays. Some were given handcuffs. Yes, we went prepared.
"Everything went according to plan because everything had been thought through.
"The vehicles came on time, breakfast, prayers, all on time. The city was under our control."
"Unprecedented" clashes
"Because I had been in charge at the polling station the night before, I was on the afternoon shift. I went home to rest and then came back in the afternoon.
"When I came back I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I never thought. It was unbelievable. The level of clashes was severe.
"This was unprecedented. I had witnessed attacks before but never at this level. People wouldn't stay back, they couldn't be suppressed and we were really in trouble.
"As I said, I had issues with everything that had unfolded and was confused. I really didn't want to get involved. But I had to be there. I didn't have the right to say I didn't want to be there. My physical presence was required.
"The clashes were very heavy. The forces were seriously involved and the people wouldn't give in or retreat in any way. There was no end in sight.
"They would be dispersed then gather again and come back. They were standing up to us.
"I wasn't one of the ordinary forces to have to involve myself in the situation. I could have, but I also had the choice not to.
"People like me who were supervising and observing and reporting back could just stand there. I stood there silently by my colleagues.
"As I talk to you now everything comes back to me. It's very hard. I still can't fathom it all. Why did it have to be like this?"
Permission to shoot
"The first day was very hard for us. When we all got back to the base that night, the commanders gave their reports from the various areas of the city.
"We were told that there would be new orders for the following days. The order came to attack everyone without restraint or mercy regardless of age. Anyone who was in disagreement.
"It was made clear, there was to be no difference between child or adult, men and women. Proper attack, without warning, or any discussion.
"This was very strange to me. Everything was surreal. This was not trivial.
"We had permission to shoot. We were all to be armed. We were supposed to support the police and security forces.
"The next day it seemed that people like us were prepared. They were ready too, and there were more of them. Just as we were prepared, they were too."
"Watch people die"
"On the second day, I don't know how to say it, it's so painful to me, talking about it is hard, the memory of it is awful...the wounded, and those who died.
"It's really hard to stand there and watch people die. I had to stand there. I had no choice.
"No [I did not kill anyone], I only accompanied others. I was trying not to get involved at all.
"They had prepared a hospital for the wounded and dead. It was a Basij hospital. It was very hard. If there was an issue with killing, it was explained that the killing was for a cause and was a good deed.
"I saw one person killed on the street but in the hospital there were many many more than was seen on the streets - from all parts of the city.
"Because the directive had been given, permission had been granted. It was intolerable."
Unspeakable things
"It's from then that things got even worse. We were all strangers. Orders and commands were followed. Clashes took every shape and form.
"How can I say. some of the things are unspeakable. I can't mentally and ideologically fathom what's happened.
"In the clashes, anyone who was wounded would be arrested. If they couldn't catch them they'd get someone else. They would arrest anyone they could.
"It made no difference who it was. Wounded, not wounded. If they were activists, all the better. Young children, young adults.
"The treatment of them - the mode of attack and length of attack on them left me in shock."
Arrest orders
"The command was to arrest as many 12-18 year olds as possible and bring them back.
"This group caused the most trouble so the idea was not to give them any opportunity to congregate. Many were arrested.
"Again, several locations had been prepared to take them and keep them there.
"The night I was there, I followed my brother there. I hadn't seen him for several days as we'd been caught up in everything. I have a lot of respect for him and love him dearly.
"Since we were children we've always done everything together. We're like twins. He said, I'll be there tonight. Come there and we'll go home together.
Sound of screams
"They had some containers ready. They had arrested some youngsters and were asking them their age and were separating them accordingly.
"Over 18s went into to one container and the under 18s into the several other containers. The number of children under the age of 18 was greater. They filled three or four containers of some 25 people in each.
"I saw all this and passed them on my way into the main courtyard building to see my relative. I greeted him and other friends.
"Then we heard noise from the yard. We thought it must be the youngsters making trouble. We went there and saw there was no-one, just the forces. The sound came from the containers.
"The sound of screams and pleading and crying. We didn't understand what was going on.
"They were pleading: ‘We're sorry, please, we regret our actions’. Or screams, or crying. We were confused. I couldn't believe that they would want to do such a thing: to rape."
Sexual violence
"This is such a heavy burden, my head hurts. But you're a woman. I'm sure you understand. Can you give me some time?
"It's as if it's replaying in front of me.
"The faces, the screams are with me every moment. It's not something you can forget or separate yourself from.
"They were pleading, they were crying, they wanted help, but my brother is a more senior authority than me. We went to see what was happening.
"There were two men of the Sepah and they came forward as we approached.
"We asked what all the noise was about. They said "Nothing, this is Fath ol Moin (aid to victory).
"We said: 'What do you mean, what are you doing? Who's in there?'
"Because they were Basij from the provinces we didn't know them. We asked: ‘What's happening, why are they crying?’
"As we pursued the matter the confrontation got worse and they said 'You have no right to enter.' My relative said: 'What do you mean? I'm one of the leaders here. You can't tell me I have no right.'
"And it really was so, but they didn't allow us entry. We were all responsible and we clashed. After a few minutes a vehicle came into the courtyard.
"Someone must have alerted the others that we were trying to prevent them from achieving what they set out to do, the Fath ol Moin.
"They had come for us to prevent the scene from deteriorating. They said our superior had summoned us.
"They said: 'Let's go. He wants to speak to you.' When we got there he was visibly furious, very frustrated. He didn't speak.
"They said: "Let's go. Haji wants to speak to you." My relative was furious and very frustrated.
"He was very angry. When we got there he said: ‘What is this? Sexual abuse is a serious crime. Who gave this order? Who authorised this?
"Haji calmly replied with a smile: ‘This is Fath Al Moin. It's a worthy deed. There's nothing wrong with it. Why are you complaining?’
"When he said this Haji thought it would calm my relative down to know this. But the opposite happened, he became more upset. He raised his voice saying: 'What do you mean it's not a crime?'
"What do you mean it's not a recognised crime? That it's a good deed? Haji saw that he had lost control and said: ‘What's the big deal? Nothing's happened.
What is the issue here?’
"My relative said again: 'What do you mean what's the big deal? Is there anything more filthy than this, more ugly than this? With children, these are children, they haven't done anything. They're from our own home town.'
"Haji saw that he couldn't control him, that he wanted to return to the base and stop what was going on.
"He said: 'You can stay here for now. Tomorrow we'll have a meeting about it, we can discuss it and see what the issue is.'
"I insisted on staying with him. But Haji said: 'You go and rest and we'll get him home. You go, the driver will take you home and wait there. We'll call you.'
"They dropped me home and my relative stayed there."
Pain and shame
"The pain and the shame in front of people and before God. I've lost my world and my religion.
"I never thought that these matters could be contaminated like this.
"I thought that I was continuing the path of my uncles and our martyrs. All my interest and enthusiasm: to have the integrity for martyrdom.
"We really saw ourselves as upstanding and separate from others. We really believed that what we did was correct, that we were serving the people, that we were serving God and that our mission was nothing but worshipping God.
"But now I am ashamed in front of people, even say that I was mistaken, and I am ashamed in front of my religion. I committed crimes, knowingly and unknowingly.
"Now I'm left with my conscience punishing me for what I did.
"I hope that God and people forgive me."
Hat Tip Pro Democracy Movement of Iran
"I've lost my world and I've lost my religion" - the words of a former Iranian Basij militia member who says he witnessed killings and tried to stop rapes during the uprising that followed the disputed Presidential election in June.
After months of stories by witnesses and victims, we are now getting a picture of what went on by a man who claims he was part of the group ordered to carry out attacks.
He is now seeking refuge in the UK and has spoken exclusively to Channel 4 News about the orders the Basij were given to ensure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election.
In her blog, Lindsey Hilsum wrote: "Maybe the most convincing authentification we have is that his story confirms the reports we've had from victims and human rights groups, who say rape has been used all over Iran in the brutal months since the June election. That and his desperation. Rarely have I interviewed someone so distressed."
Lindsey Hilsum's report contains flash photography.
Election orders
"In truth the orders didn't come after the election. The orders for all that you witnessed came before the election.
"We were prepared. But we didn't ever imagine that people’s actions would be so great. We had received orders regarding student activities.
"From three or four months before the election we had attended classes on ideological and political thought and crowd control.
"We knew what we had to do but nothing prepared us for what we saw. There were severe clashes in the first few days, and so new orders were given for forthcoming days."
Religious dilemma
"I'm in complete turmoil all the time. I spent more than twenty years raised like this, and before me a household of martyrs. I keep thinking, which is right?
What I’ve chosen now, or the path they've taken.
"Our family is no small undertaking. It has many martyrs. My uncle was martyred with Mr D, Mr AHD.
"We are a prominent religious family - always there on the frontline, always with memories of war, frontline and revolution. Since these events I keep thinking, who is right?"
Election build-up
"From three or four months before I had a social undertaking, preparing to see how people would encounter the elections, the level of attendance - would it be well received, do they believe in it, do they think something could still be done?
"It was going well even though they spoke of Khatami (reformist former president) coming, and then he wasn't coming. All this created excitement.
People came with genuine enthusiasm.
"We got various statistics and analysed them. We wanted to get an idea of what the mode of clashes would be.
"When the campaigns began the excitement reached a new height.
“We had received orders a matter of months before that there is jurisprudence, that there is the jurisprudence of the Imam Zaman, (the 13th Imam, who is expected to return like a Messiah) whose incarnation is Ayatollah Khamenei, and that he had announced that for the advancement and development of Islam and the development of the revolution no-one could be more effective than Mr. Ahmadinejad.
"Therefore the order came that Mr Khamenei has him in mind, that Mr Khamenei has Mr Ahmadinejad in mind for the presidency and so he must be announced as the winner.
"It's he who is best suited to this revolution, order and Velayat Faqih (Iranian system of Islamic jurisprudence)"
"Scary and horrifying"
"I was extremely taken aback. How can I explain? This is someone who I couldn't even entertain a conflicting thought against.
"It was truly a scary and horrifying scenario to go against wishes or opinion, especially if that opinion belongs to the Supreme Leader or that of the Velayat Faqih, for you to express a personal opinion.
"It was a terrible situation. On the one side I saw the people and on the other there was the order."
Ballot box fraud
"The answers to your questions go back to before the elections. In the private meeting we had for those responsible for the ballot boxes, including my brother and me, it was made clear.
"The orders were announced as to how everything would be conducted on the day of the election. We were among those responsible for the ballot boxes."
Role of the Basij
"I don't know how much you know about the Basij but it is an extremely vast organ, much more extensive than you would imagine.
"Although you may think that it is without formal organisation, it is in fact very precise and extremely organised with sophisticated planning and everything is specified.
"When an order is received, or when the Supreme Leader has announced his opinion, well, Mr D is the spokesman of the leader and we are Mr D's spokespeople.
"The foundations of Islam and the foundations of Shi'ism and Velayat are such that we have accepted the Velayat. When the Velayat has an opinion, everyone's opinion must follow, because if it's outside of this there is no place for you. You're an outsider.
"He [Khamenei] makes his announcement and Mr D translates this in the form of advice and discussion.
"Everything has a hierarchy. It doesn't call for Mr Khamenei to come and directly make an announcement to the soldiers, when I say soldier, I, or we, saw ourselves as soldiers of the Imam Zaman.
"He doesn't need to come and make his announcement to the forces directly, he expresses his opinion and according to the hierarchical system, the news will reach those who need to hear it.
"Mr D's opinion is an absolute obedience of the Supreme Leader. We've been told this in meetings.
"In the private meeting I mentioned to you, the commanders of the Sepah (Revolutionary Guard) were present as well as those of various Basij units from different areas.
"It was imperative to have the leader's vision, and it was announced then that his vision is this, that he elects Ahmadinejad."
Election fraud
"For us who were responsible for the ballot boxes the order was this: that Aqa's [Khamenei's] wish is for Ahmadinejad to win.
"For illiterate people and those not able to complete their ballots, you must do so for them and complete them accordingly (for Ahmadinejad), no matter who their vote was intended for.
"Same with blank votes. In the counting the blank votes wouldn't be announced as void.
"They [the illiterate] were generally made up of elderly men and women - and they are great believers in the mosque community and religious matters and areas where there is a lower literacy rate like the villages or areas of the big cities."
Youth vote suppressed
"Our problem was the young people and university students, we had prepared for the others.
"Well they [the students] weren't around for the count. When they left, how can I say, I'm very ashamed now, but they just came up to the box and then left.
"After the voting was over it was only us who were there. We were honest in that the command was followed.
"When the voting was over, the boxes were opened, but not all of them.
"A few were opened and counted, then we received another order to send the boxes to the main centre."
Stopping the protests
"Because a reaction was expected, we had been ordered from before the election for all security forces to be ready for the following day.
"They told us to come early for group prayers. We went along with others who'd been invited. Prayers took place. This was followed by a short speech confirming Mr Ahmadinejad's victory and the congratulations in order.
"Sweets and pastries were offered and the forces were organised into two shifts.
"There were areas that had been previously noted as problem areas - we called them the red points - where security presence was essential.
"These were announced, the shifts were determined and everyone was deployed. It was early.
"We had set out very early before anyone could get started. Everyone took their positions and were armed.
"The command was that we were to prevent any gathering of people to take shape.
Violent suppression
"Any hint of protest was to be firmly supressed. If anything occured, to attack.
"Attacking people meant nothing. As I told you, anyone who thought differently to Ayatollah Khamenei and outside of the Velayat Faqih was considered an outsider.
"Therefore his protest has no place, therefore his opinion and protest is meaningless.
"It was simple. It was not for us to think anything of them - both voters and protesters.
"In our view, it was not a protest against the issue but a protest against Ayatollah Khamenei himself.
"And it's just not comprehensible to us that someone should want to question him. He is our guide."
Controlling the city
"On that day in this area there were batons, and cables that coil and extend easily. If it attaches to someone's hand and you pull it you can do serious harm.
"Sprays like pepper sprays. Some were given handcuffs. Yes, we went prepared.
"Everything went according to plan because everything had been thought through.
"The vehicles came on time, breakfast, prayers, all on time. The city was under our control."
"Unprecedented" clashes
"Because I had been in charge at the polling station the night before, I was on the afternoon shift. I went home to rest and then came back in the afternoon.
"When I came back I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I never thought. It was unbelievable. The level of clashes was severe.
"This was unprecedented. I had witnessed attacks before but never at this level. People wouldn't stay back, they couldn't be suppressed and we were really in trouble.
"As I said, I had issues with everything that had unfolded and was confused. I really didn't want to get involved. But I had to be there. I didn't have the right to say I didn't want to be there. My physical presence was required.
"The clashes were very heavy. The forces were seriously involved and the people wouldn't give in or retreat in any way. There was no end in sight.
"They would be dispersed then gather again and come back. They were standing up to us.
"I wasn't one of the ordinary forces to have to involve myself in the situation. I could have, but I also had the choice not to.
"People like me who were supervising and observing and reporting back could just stand there. I stood there silently by my colleagues.
"As I talk to you now everything comes back to me. It's very hard. I still can't fathom it all. Why did it have to be like this?"
Permission to shoot
"The first day was very hard for us. When we all got back to the base that night, the commanders gave their reports from the various areas of the city.
"We were told that there would be new orders for the following days. The order came to attack everyone without restraint or mercy regardless of age. Anyone who was in disagreement.
"It was made clear, there was to be no difference between child or adult, men and women. Proper attack, without warning, or any discussion.
"This was very strange to me. Everything was surreal. This was not trivial.
"We had permission to shoot. We were all to be armed. We were supposed to support the police and security forces.
"The next day it seemed that people like us were prepared. They were ready too, and there were more of them. Just as we were prepared, they were too."
"Watch people die"
"On the second day, I don't know how to say it, it's so painful to me, talking about it is hard, the memory of it is awful...the wounded, and those who died.
"It's really hard to stand there and watch people die. I had to stand there. I had no choice.
"No [I did not kill anyone], I only accompanied others. I was trying not to get involved at all.
"They had prepared a hospital for the wounded and dead. It was a Basij hospital. It was very hard. If there was an issue with killing, it was explained that the killing was for a cause and was a good deed.
"I saw one person killed on the street but in the hospital there were many many more than was seen on the streets - from all parts of the city.
"Because the directive had been given, permission had been granted. It was intolerable."
Unspeakable things
"It's from then that things got even worse. We were all strangers. Orders and commands were followed. Clashes took every shape and form.
"How can I say. some of the things are unspeakable. I can't mentally and ideologically fathom what's happened.
"In the clashes, anyone who was wounded would be arrested. If they couldn't catch them they'd get someone else. They would arrest anyone they could.
"It made no difference who it was. Wounded, not wounded. If they were activists, all the better. Young children, young adults.
"The treatment of them - the mode of attack and length of attack on them left me in shock."
Arrest orders
"The command was to arrest as many 12-18 year olds as possible and bring them back.
"This group caused the most trouble so the idea was not to give them any opportunity to congregate. Many were arrested.
"Again, several locations had been prepared to take them and keep them there.
"The night I was there, I followed my brother there. I hadn't seen him for several days as we'd been caught up in everything. I have a lot of respect for him and love him dearly.
"Since we were children we've always done everything together. We're like twins. He said, I'll be there tonight. Come there and we'll go home together.
Sound of screams
"They had some containers ready. They had arrested some youngsters and were asking them their age and were separating them accordingly.
"Over 18s went into to one container and the under 18s into the several other containers. The number of children under the age of 18 was greater. They filled three or four containers of some 25 people in each.
"I saw all this and passed them on my way into the main courtyard building to see my relative. I greeted him and other friends.
"Then we heard noise from the yard. We thought it must be the youngsters making trouble. We went there and saw there was no-one, just the forces. The sound came from the containers.
"The sound of screams and pleading and crying. We didn't understand what was going on.
"They were pleading: ‘We're sorry, please, we regret our actions’. Or screams, or crying. We were confused. I couldn't believe that they would want to do such a thing: to rape."
Sexual violence
"This is such a heavy burden, my head hurts. But you're a woman. I'm sure you understand. Can you give me some time?
"It's as if it's replaying in front of me.
"The faces, the screams are with me every moment. It's not something you can forget or separate yourself from.
"They were pleading, they were crying, they wanted help, but my brother is a more senior authority than me. We went to see what was happening.
"There were two men of the Sepah and they came forward as we approached.
"We asked what all the noise was about. They said "Nothing, this is Fath ol Moin (aid to victory).
"We said: 'What do you mean, what are you doing? Who's in there?'
"Because they were Basij from the provinces we didn't know them. We asked: ‘What's happening, why are they crying?’
"As we pursued the matter the confrontation got worse and they said 'You have no right to enter.' My relative said: 'What do you mean? I'm one of the leaders here. You can't tell me I have no right.'
"And it really was so, but they didn't allow us entry. We were all responsible and we clashed. After a few minutes a vehicle came into the courtyard.
"Someone must have alerted the others that we were trying to prevent them from achieving what they set out to do, the Fath ol Moin.
"They had come for us to prevent the scene from deteriorating. They said our superior had summoned us.
"They said: 'Let's go. He wants to speak to you.' When we got there he was visibly furious, very frustrated. He didn't speak.
"They said: "Let's go. Haji wants to speak to you." My relative was furious and very frustrated.
"He was very angry. When we got there he said: ‘What is this? Sexual abuse is a serious crime. Who gave this order? Who authorised this?
"Haji calmly replied with a smile: ‘This is Fath Al Moin. It's a worthy deed. There's nothing wrong with it. Why are you complaining?’
"When he said this Haji thought it would calm my relative down to know this. But the opposite happened, he became more upset. He raised his voice saying: 'What do you mean it's not a crime?'
"What do you mean it's not a recognised crime? That it's a good deed? Haji saw that he had lost control and said: ‘What's the big deal? Nothing's happened.
What is the issue here?’
"My relative said again: 'What do you mean what's the big deal? Is there anything more filthy than this, more ugly than this? With children, these are children, they haven't done anything. They're from our own home town.'
"Haji saw that he couldn't control him, that he wanted to return to the base and stop what was going on.
"He said: 'You can stay here for now. Tomorrow we'll have a meeting about it, we can discuss it and see what the issue is.'
"I insisted on staying with him. But Haji said: 'You go and rest and we'll get him home. You go, the driver will take you home and wait there. We'll call you.'
"They dropped me home and my relative stayed there."
Pain and shame
"The pain and the shame in front of people and before God. I've lost my world and my religion.
"I never thought that these matters could be contaminated like this.
"I thought that I was continuing the path of my uncles and our martyrs. All my interest and enthusiasm: to have the integrity for martyrdom.
"We really saw ourselves as upstanding and separate from others. We really believed that what we did was correct, that we were serving the people, that we were serving God and that our mission was nothing but worshipping God.
"But now I am ashamed in front of people, even say that I was mistaken, and I am ashamed in front of my religion. I committed crimes, knowingly and unknowingly.
"Now I'm left with my conscience punishing me for what I did.
"I hope that God and people forgive me."
Hat Tip Pro Democracy Movement of Iran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
