ORLY TAITZ APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION RE: SANCTIONS

8/9/2019 ORLY TAITZ APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION RE: SANCTIONS

1/26

This brief for stay was forwared to Hon.Assocate Justice of the Supreme CourtClarence Thomas

Posted on | July 7, 2010 |No Comments

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Rhodes

v.

MacDonald

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THEsanctions

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

949-683-5411
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12212


2/26

ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

Questions posed

1. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merelybringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

2. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused ahearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneysare harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?

3. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear andwhich case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing

to court a case that he doesnt feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?

4. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law,when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which bydefault, affects the career of such judge?

5. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without validvital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birthcertificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear thisissue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue,claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

6. Can the courts indefinitely evade the issue of eligibility of US president, while endangeringthe well-being of the public?

7. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or anorder to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?

8. What Constitutes natural born citizen according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?


3/26

AFFIRMATION OF JURISDICTION

Applicant respectfully submit to this Honorable Court that she had brought this emergencyapplication directly from a final judgment from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Originalcase Rhodes v MacDonald 4:09-CV-106 was heard by US District Court Judge Clay D. Land(Hereinafter Land) in the middle District of GA (Exhibits1. 2, 3), Appeal in 11th circuit, Case #09-14698.(Exhibit 10)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This emergency application is brought to this Honorable Court from a final decision of theHonorable Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals denying reversal of sanctions assessed against theapplicant by District Court Judge Clay D. Land in retaliation for her bringing to his courtroom asecond case on behalf of a member of US military officer questioning the legality of deploymentorders issued by Barack Hussein Obama, who refused to unseal any of his vital records andnever qualified as a legitimate President and Commander in Chief, based on Article 2, 1 of theConstitution of the United States of America.

Application for stay of sanctions

The appellant in this case is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, seeking a stay and reversal of the $20,000 Rule

11 sanctions assessed against her by Judge Clay D. Land in the Middle District of GA. Rule 11sanctions are typically applied when the case is not sufficiently investigated by the counsel priorto bringing it to court. The facts of the underlying caseRhodes v MacDonald4:09-CV-106Middle District of GA were researched for a year. Licensed investigators were used, Taitz hasreached the highest ranks of the military in her investigation of the case. It was not a case ofanything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay D. Land tosilence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, an attempt to instill fear in eachand every attorney, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US militarychallenging Barack Hussein Obamas complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. She isseeking a stay and reversal of sanctions, as well as limited rule 11 discovery, to show that heractions were not frivolous, but rather reasonable and justified, that is not only not frivolous, but

is the most important case today and possibly most important in US history, as sanctions wereasserted to obfuscate illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama for US presidency. Lands order canonly be characterized as a legal hit job. Land really wanted to deter any further legal actionsagainst Obama. He started his order with a statement comparing Taitz to Alice in Wonderlandand saying that just saying so, does not make it so. Unfortunately, Land did not think of theunderlying case, where Obama is saying, that he is a legitimate President and Commander inChief, however in light of the fact that multiple experts show him using Social Security numbersof others, not having a valid Social Security number of his own, not willing to unseal his original


4/26

1961 birth certificate with the name of the doctor and hospital, just saying he is legitimate,does not make it so, does not make him legitimate and discovery is warranted. Taitz wassubjected to ridicule and insults on account of Land christening her Alice in Wonderland. Shewas even put on the hit list of Southern Poverty Law Center under the name Alice inWonderland. While Taitz appreciates Lands fondness of Lewis Carroll, it is really important for

Land to wake up from his slumber and sweet dreams about Alice in Wonderland and appreciatethe fact that US military did not fall in the rabbit hole and is not looking for an adventure, but iscurrently in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting real Radical Muslim Terrorists, and it is important forthe military officers, as well as the whole nation to know if the Commander in Chief isLegitimate, and where does his allegiance lie. While citizens of this country do not expectCarolls mathematical abilities to be exhibited on the bench, never the less, they do expect morethan the Lilliput deductive reasoning and legal analysis in ascertaining that, when the Militarypressures a defense contractor to fire a decorated officer and an active reservist from his$120,000 a year job in retaliation for questioning legitimacy of Obama in court, that indeedrepresents an injury in fact that warrants discovery.

Background of the case

Taitz has done extensive research for over a year and provided the court with information,showing that Barack Hussein Obama not only didnt provide any proof of his Natural BornCitizen status, but also used multiple Social Security numbers of deceased individuals, as well asnumbers never assigned. Taitz has presented the trial court with an affidavit from Mr. NeilSankey, a licensed investigator, former Scotland Yard officer, working with the elite antiorganized crime and anti communist proliferation units. (Exhibit 4). This report shows thataccording to National databases Choice Point and Lexis Nexis, there are multiple Social SecurityNumbers connected to the name Barack Obama and Barry Obama. None of these numbers wereissued in the State of Hawaii, where Mr. Obama claims to have been born. Selective Serviceofficial on line records (Exhibit 11) show Mr. Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was issued in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890. Even today Mr. Obamais residing in the White House, using this Social Security number, which not only points to hisforeign birth, as typically individuals not born in this country use Social security numbers ofothers, but it is also an indication of multiple crimes committed, such as Social security fraud,Elections Fraud and Identity Theft. Any other citizen of this country would not be allowed to getaway with such crimes. Any other citizen would be serving a lengthy prison term for suchcrimes. It is only a testament to utter corruption in the Judiciary, that such crimes were allowedto go on and attorneys like Taitz were intimidated, harassed and subjected to retaliation in theform of sanctions and threat to her license for bringing forward evidence of such crimes.

Taitz has brought two cases on behalf of members of the US military, seeking stay of theirdeployment pending verification of legitimacy of Mr. Obamas status as the President andCommander in Chief. Both of these cases were heard by Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus GA.

The First Action was brought on behalf of a member of active reserves Stefan Cook. Uponrevocation of Major Cooks orders, Judge Land has dismissed the case, refusing to consider thefact that Major Cook was also fired from his position as a defense contractor employee in aclear retaliation for his filing the above legal action against Barack Obama, the court also


5/26

refused to consider the fact that two other high ranked officers: a Major General and a Lt.Colonel have joined the above action and an argument was brought forward that this is a case ofa repeated violation of a Constitutional right for redress of grievances, which evades judicialreview every time such orders are revoked, as well as an argument that revocation of orders todeploy in light of request to produce documents attesting to Obamas legitimacy indirectly

indicate that the military has nothing to show, which undermines the military.

A second case was brought on behalf of an active duty Flight Surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes.While in the first case the military could justify revocation of the orders by the fact that MajorCook was a reservist, this argument would not fly with an active military, so the military andjudiciary has subjected both the plaintiff and her attorney Taitz to intimidation and retaliation.Initially captain Rhodes was not allowed to attend her hearing and threatened with court martial(Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Captain Rhodes) as the attorney for the Department of Defense lied incourt claiming that she wasnt at the first hearing because she was no longer interested inpursuing the litigation. Later Judge Land dismissed the case based on the Doctrine ofAbstention, stating that he does not want to get involved in the internal matters of the military

and assessed the cost of litigation upon the plaintiff. Potentially tens or hundreds of thousands ofdollars that could have been assessed for the three attorneys representing the US attorneysoffice, Pentagon and Fort Benning, where used as a leverage against the plaintiff to convince hernot to appeal and abruptly withdraw from the case. At the same time Land has assessed $20,000worth of sanctions against Taitz, claiming violation of Rule 11. Sanctions were appealed to the11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal denied with one sentence, stating that the appealwas not convincing. No explanation was provided, as to what was found to be unconvincing.

Legal Argument

Sanctions are inconsistent with Rule 11

Typically rule 11th

sanctions are assessed when an attorney does not perform sufficient inquiry.In this case Taitz worked around the clock for a year and obtained more information than anyoneelse on the planet in regards to Obamas illegitimacy for the US presidency and in regard tomassive fraud perpetrated by Mr. Obama in placing his name on the ballot and obfuscating all ofhis vital records. Judge Land states in the introduction to his order that Rule 11 sanctionsprohibit a lawyer from asserting claims or legal positions that are not well-founded underexisting law or through the modifications, extension, or expansion of existing law. Land failedto point any single claim made by Taitz that would violate any single law.

Land stated that per Rule 11 an attorney should not clog the court with frivolous motions orappeals, however Land did not point to anything specifically frivolous in the motions filed byTaitz. His final ruling in the underlying case was that he will not proceed with the case for thereason of abstention, as he does not want to get involved in the matters of the military. Thedoctrine of abstention is used only in certain cases. In a similar case ofMindes , 453 F.2d 197(5th Cir 1971) circuit court of appeals has put forward specific guidelines and a three prong test,according to which abstention would not be appropriate. If, as in the case at hand, the plaintiffhas


6/26

1. exhausted all avenues available in the military,2. established that the issue relates to violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of the

plaintiff3. and the issue is not technical, abstention will not be appropriate.

InRhodes

1. Taitz, as an attorney, representing over 200 members of the military, reached CaptainJames Crawford, ESQ, the legal counsel for Admiral Mike Mullins, Chairman of the jointChiefs of staff, who stated that nothing can be done within the military, as technically theCommander in Chief is considered to be a civilian. (Exhibit 13)

2. The issue violated the plaintiffs Constitutional right of Redress of Grievances3. The issue was not technical, it was not an issue of using one weapon instead of another,

one tank instead of another. It was a specific issue of Constitutionality of orders of oneunconstitutionally holding a position of Commander in Chief.

Taitz fully complied with the requirements of theMindes

guidelines, and not only sanctionswere not appropriate, but an underlying decision by judge Land was inappropriate andunsupported by law, by the Constitutional and by precedents. Moreover, even if assumingarguendo an underlying decision by Judge Land would somehow be considered valid andsupported by law, it still does not mean that bringing the case to court was frivolous, as there wasa clear possibility of Rhodes falling into same category as Mindes. As such sanctions were notjustified based on law and facts.

Taitz was born and raised in the Communist totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, where noone single attorney was ever able to get a judgment against the Soviet Rulers and the regime. NoConstitutional attorney was able to uphold any Constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, as those

rights were routinely violated by the regime and the judiciary. It didnt mean that the legalactions by the Constitutional attorneys were frivolous. It simply meant that the whole countrydescended in the darkness of tyranny. Similarly, allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand,will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the ConstitutionalRepublic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: If the judiciary cansanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? WillFEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations ofdissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime ofSaddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran? This is the mostdangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator,who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and nothaving a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.

He further states that Rule 11 also prohibits an attorney from using the courts for a purposeunrelated to the resolution of legitimate legal cause of action. Again, Land did not provide anexample of anything that Taitz has done that was unrelated to the cause of action. She simplyrepresented her client, Flight Surgeon Capt. Connie Rhodes and her request for discovery andjudicial determination and declaratory relief in regards to legitimacy of the Commander in Chiefin light of the fact, that Mr. Obama, Commander in Chief, has used multiple social security


7/26

numbers, according to national databases and in light of the fact that he never unsealed hisoriginal birth certificate, in light of the fact that the Abbreviated Certification of Live Birth thatwas produced recently, in 2007, did not have any specific information: no name of the doctor, noname of the hospital, no signatures. Her client testified on the stand that, as a doctor she couldnot believe that one can be born in this country and not have a live birth file in the hospital and a

proper hospital birth certificate with the name of the attending physician, name of the hospitaland signatures. Taitz was justified in demanding verification of legitimacy of the Commander inChief. There was absolutely nothing brought in the pleading and in the hearing in court thatjustified an assertion by Land that Taitz used the court for purpose unrelated to the litigation.Therefore, the underlying assertion and the conclusion were an error of fact.

In his order of sanctions Land intentionally misrepresented each and every fact of the case. Landstarted by misrepresenting the prior case of Major Cook, a reservist, who was also questioninglegitimacy of Barack Obama, and who was also represented by Taitz. Land stated that Taitztried to use the legal process as a foundation for her political agenda. It is sad and appallingthat a federal judge will consider adherence to US Constitution to be a political agenda.

This is not a political agenda, it is the Supreme law of the land that Land took an oath todefend. Land stated that she (Taitz) seeks to use the courts power to compel discovery in herefforts to force the president to produce a birth certificate that is satisfactory to her and herfollowers. In reality Taitz has presented Judge Land with overwhelming evidence that Obamahas never presented his original birth certificate, that is still sealed in the Health Department ofthe state of Hawaii (if it even exists). This is of particular importance, since the State of Hi hasstatute 338-17 that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birthcertificate; statute 338-5 that allows one to obtain a birth certificate based on a statement of onerelative only; statute 338-6 that allows one to get a late birth certificate. Taitz has also presentedto the court affidavits from licensed investigators, showing that according to numerous nationaldatabases Barack Obama has used multiple Social Security numbers, none of which was issuedin HI. Taitz has presented an affidavit from a licensed forensic document expert Sandra RamseyLines (Exhibit 5), who attested to the fact that abbreviated (short version) Certification Of LiveBirth, (hereinafter COLB) cannot be considered genuine without examining the original birthcertificate, currently sealed in HI. All of this information coupled with Obamas refusal topresent any vital records in spite of over a hundred legal actions filed in the courts all over thecountry, provided reasonable basis to assume Obamas illegitimacy to the US presidency andposition of the Commander in Chief and the need for judicial determination of the above issueprior to the deployment of the US military pursuant to Obamas orders. This issue was clearlypresented to Land, who simply has chosen to ignore all the facts of the case .

Judge Land intentionally misrepresented the ultimate relief that the plaintiff in that case wasseeking. Judge Land stated that the Army has revoked the deployment orders. As a result MajorCook received the ultimate relief that he purportedly sought in the legal action: a revocation ofthe deployment order. The plaintiff, major Cook, was a decorated army officer, who has servedin the field of battle. He wanted to serve, however he did not want to serve under the illegitimateCommander in Chief. The misrepresentation of these facts was not only intellectually dishonest,but a vicious attack on a decorated Army Officer, calculated to denigrate him in the eyes of thepublic and negatively affect his prospects to the future employment. Misrepresentation of thefacts also served to promote Judge Lands agenda of further vilifying Taitz.


8/26

Judge Land improperly ignored the fact that reservist Major Cook was also fired from hisposition as a defense contractor employee as a result of the pressure applied by the military onhis employer, pursuant to his filing of the above complaint. There was an outstanding issue ofwrongful termination of Major Cook, of violation of whistleblower statutes. Judge Landignored large part of the case, where two other high ranking officers a Major General and

a Lt. Colonel joined the case, and Taitz argued that this is a an issue of violation ofConstitutional rights, that repeats itself, but evades review, akin to Roe v Wade. This is anissue of National importance, however yet again Judge Land has refused to address any of thesubstantial issues of the case, but rather used it to try to intimidate the members of the military.

Captain Rhodes case

Yet again in his order Land misrepresents the facts. As stated previously, Taitz has followed theprecedent ofMindes and showed the court that she exhausted all means of redress within themilitary, that it was an issue of violation of constitutional rights of a member of the military, itwas not a technical issue, and therefore subject to review and not subject to abstention. Taitz has

provided the court with the argument, whereby the members of the US military are sworn touphold the Constitution, which includes Article 2, section 1. Demanding the members of the USmilitary to violate the oath of office and serve under the illegitimate Commander in Chief, whoseorders will be illegal is a damage in itself. Judge Land has stated that Taitz has resorted topolitical rhetoric. In reality, as the pleadings and transcripts have shown, Taitz has provided thecourt with the reasonable examples of members of the military following illegal orders. Taitz hasprovided the court with the example of three children, members of her husbands family, whowere killed in the Holocaust, when Nazi officers told these three young kids to dig their owngraves, shot them and threw them into those graves. Judge Land called those statementspolitical rhetoric, even though those were appropriate examples of consequences of membersof the military following unlawful orders.

Land claimed that the fact that Capt. Rhodes questioned the deployment order, but not otherorders was suspect. In reality this was logical and appropriate. It showed that Capt. Rhodes didnot act frivolously, but rather acted only when an important order came down the chain ofcommand from Obama, as the Commander in Chief, and when this order related to herpersonally. Clearly, when one is asked to risk her life pursuant an order, one has standing tobring a legal action to court and seek judicial determination of validity of such order, one canshow imminent harm associated with such an order. It was an appropriate action, brought at anappropriate time, in an appropriate jurisdiction. The court was respectfully asked for a limiteddiscovery and declaratory relief, which could be accomplished within one day. Instead, Landhas chosen to use his position as a pulpit to harass and denigrate the plaintiff and Taitz. While itwas clear that Judge Lands actions were calculated to calm down the military in relation toObamas legitimacy, and preserve the scheduled deployment, at the end of the day Judge Landsactions only added wood to the fire, added disgust towards the actions of the administration andthe judiciary. Currently, yet another officer, Lt. Col Terry Lakin is facing a court martial forchallenging the same type of order. Other recent events show that Taitz was correct in herassertions, as on May 25, 2010 the parliament of Kenya issued a transcript of the parliamentarysession clearly indicating that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, which means that he was noteligible for US presidency and Taitz was correct in representing her client, challenging her


9/26


10/26

was issued in HI. Clearly the case was brought not based on something empirical as looks, butbased on evidence. This argument brought by Land was unreasonable, it showed bias,misrepresented the facts and could not be justification for sanctions.

Major Cook case, Exception to mootness doctrine

Judge Land issued sanctions, referring to Rhodes v MacDonald and Cook v Good . Landclaimed that the actions were frivolous and that Cook was moot after military revoked thedeployment orders for Cook. Land erred in not considering the fact that injury sustained by themembers of US military falls under a category of cases that are capable ofrepetition, yetevading review. In Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d SupremeCourt of the US held the exception to mootness doctrine for violations capable of repetition,yet evading review applied because the Constitutional violation was likely to be repeated butwould not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot In oral argument the

undersigned counselor equated this issue to Roe v Wade 410 US 113, 125, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and the issue of women being pregnant and not being able to have their caseheard, as it was rendered moot after each delivery. In Oregon AdvocacyCtr v Mink, 322F 3d1101, 1118(9th Cir 2003) it was held that plaintiffs have standing if they are challenging anongoing governmental policy, even if specific injury no longer exists. Here we have an ongoingpolicy of concealment of records of the Commander in Chief. To this point DC Circuit court heldthat when a complaint challenges an acknowledgement or apparent governmental policy, thegovernment cannot prevail by arguing that the controversy became moot when the particularsituation at issue resolved itself. Ukranian American Bar Assnn v Baker, 893 F. 2d 1374, 1377(DC Cir 1990). Two more officers joined Cook. Thousands of similar orders are issued on adaily basis. Recently a decorated Active Duty colonel of air force and a flight surgeon has

decided to face court martial, rather than follow orders of illegitimate Commander in Chief.Clearly this issue is capable of repetition and evades any meaningful review on the merits. Whenjudges around the country are creating an illusion of a hearing , but later state that they have nojurisdiction, or refuse to hear the case, claiming abstention doctrine, that does not constitute ahearing. Therefore, the court erred in dismissing underlying case of Cook v Good and erred laterby assessing sanctions against Taitz.

Order by Judge Land shows clear bias.

The decision and order by Judge Land shows clear bias. Judge Land has used a pejorative termbirther, describing Taitz as the leader of the birther movement. It is not only not justified,but totally despicable that a Federal judge would use the technique of Saul Alinsky in trying toinsult, assault and marginalize an attorney. Land used his color of authority to attack Taitzpersonally and, as one fighting for verification of eligibility.


11/26

Land acted in a fashion unbecoming a judge, when he rudely tried to ridicule Taitz andassassinate her character. One of his statements was perhaps an eccentric citizen has becomeconvinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the court should order DNA testing toenforce the Constitution. Clearly there is a huge difference between actions of some eccentricperson and attorney like Taitz bringing affidavits from licensed investigators and experts.

Affairs like Watergate did not go unpunished. Obama-gate will not go unpunished. Landrudely called Taitz effords antics. In reality judge Lands actions were antics. Massive fraud ofAmerican citizens perpetrated by Obama will be punished and history will not look kindly onjudge Lands antics andon any other judge who was aiding and abetting Obamas massivefraud.

Judge Land has intentionally misrepresented the facts and attacked both Major Cook and CaptainRhodes. Both plaintiffs clearly stated that they willing to deploy and serve, provided that they arefollowing legitimate orders. Judge Land intentionally misrepresented them as ones who do notwant to serve.

The order of sanctions issued by Land on 10.13.09 ridicules the fact that Taitz mentionedJustice Thurgood Marshall. In reality there is no difference in what Justice Marshall was doingand what Taitz was doing in court. Justice Marshall was fighting to uphold the Constitutionalrights of AfricanAmericans. Taitz is fighting to uphold the Constitutional rights of everyAmerican citizen, a right of redress of grievances and having a judicial determination. Sheis fighting to make sure that three hundred and five million Americans have a real access tocourts, have an ability to redress their grievances. She is fighting to make sure that each andevery legal action where the citizens and members of the media try to verify eligibility of thepresident or another official can be heard on the merits, and not summarily dismissed, whereevery judge claims to have no jurisdiction and allows no standing to any citizens. She is leadinga movement where citizens can get access of the real documents of the candidates, to theoriginal birth certificate of Mr. Obama and original live birth file in the Kapiolani hospital, tomake sure that the citizens of this Nation are not being defrauded by a person whoobfuscates all of his vital records. It is mind boggling that Land could not see the importance ofthis movement and decided to fine Taitz for simply following the Constitution and representingthe citizens who want their civil rights, their Constitutional rights upheld. If during the career ofThurgood Marshal, he wouldve encountered a judge like Clay D. Land, who wouldve finedhim $20,000 for trying to protect the citizens constitutional rights, this would have put a stop tothe civil right movement of the 50s and the 60s. Attorneys would have been scared, intimidatedto represent the citizens who were trying to uphold their constitutional rights and someone likeBarack Obama would have no chance of ever being anywhere near the ballot.

Fourteenth Amendment protection to due process and equal protection under the law

Land ridiculed Taitz notion that her clients deserved Fourteenth amendment protection. Ms.Ausprung, attorney for the Department of Defense argued that there is a difference betweenillegal orders and one not being legitimate occupant of the office. Her rational was, that even ifObama is not legitimate, it does not make the orders issued by him illegal. Land upheld this logicand attacked Taitz in his order claiming that Taitz cheapened the memory of Thurgood Marshallby comparing her legal actions to ones of Marshall, because Marshall protected the rights of the


12/26

black children, who were sent to inferior schools, while Captain Rhodes is an adult, who isrefusing deployment based on the speculation that the Commander in Chief is not legitimate.

First of all, Taitz presented legal evidence and not speculation. Second of all, does Lands ordermean that the equal protection rights exist only for children and not for adults? Do those rights

exist only for blacks and not for whites? If that is the case, than we have reverse discrimination,it means that we throw away the notion of equal protection, that we lay it at the altar of politicalcorrectness.

Now, lets look at this argument of the order being valid regardless of whether the person givingthe order has legitimacy in occupying such franchise, or whether he is an illegitimate usurper.

Lets imagine for a moment that someone, a janitor, decides to play a prank. He puts on a blackrobe and sits on the bench and signs an order for an officer to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan,lets say he signs such order when judge Land is on a bathroom brake. Say, such officer brings acomplaint, that the order was illegal. Does it mean, that if the order seems to be legal on its

face, it is actually legal, regardless of whether the person, who signed it, is actually a judge or ajanitor playing a prank? Does an attorney for such officer supposed to be sanctioned $20,000 formerely bringing the claim to court and asking to evaluate its validity?

Aside from being an attorney, Taitz is also a Doctor of Dental surgery. Lets say one decides todo surgery on a patient without having any medical training or license. If for the grace of godsuch patient doesnt die and miraculously is not injured, does it mean that he has no recourse?Does it mean that his attorney will be charged $20,000 in sanctions for bringing this matter tocourt?

If you bring any example, from any aspect of life, it is crystal clear, that such logic represents

complete insanity. The whole world is looking at the United States in complete bewilderment,not understanding what mental disorder has afflicted US judges and US attorneys and otherofficials in allowing such insanity to go on for a year and a half now.

Sanctions are unconstitutional as infringement on free speech

Every US citizen has a First Amendment right to free speech. Additionally, attorneys have aright to engage in a practice of law, which represents a form of commercial speech. Actions byLand represented an assault on such protected speech of both Taitz and her clients. When aFederal Judge uses his gavel as a cane for public flogging of an attorney, who is a Civilrights defender, who works pro bono to protect her clients First Amendment rights to free

speech and for redress of grievances, such federal judge betrays his oath of office and aidsand abets an onslaught on the US Constitution, abets conversion of the ConstitutionalRepublic into tyranny.

Sanctions infringe upon the right of the citizens and members of the military to have legalrepresentation.


13/26

Members of US military are bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, they have aConstitutionally protected first amendment right for redress of grievances. They have tried toaddress their grievance within the agency, within the military, but were denied such right, whenthe highest legal authority, Legal Counsel of Admiral Mulin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff has written that the issue of legality of the Commander in Chief cannot be resolved within

the military, since Commander in Chief is a civilian(Exhibit 13). Members of the military arewithin their right to seek redress of their grievance in Federal Court and use services of anattorney. Federal Judiciary has a Constitutional duty to address those grievances and provide ananswer. Incidentally, currently Obama regime is suing the State of Arizona and might beinstigating a secession of Arizona and other states and a new Civil War, by claiming that Arizonastatute 1070 is unconstitutional. Knowing that AZ 1070 is a mere reflection of FederalImmigration statutes and no one was harmed by it and no one is in imminent injury of beingharmed by it, one wonders Per Que Warranto? By what warrant, by what authority Obamaadministration is doing it? Absent real concern of Mr. Obama being afraid to be deported, whileon a trip to Sedona or Grand Canyon, one wonders: How does one, who refuses to unseal hisvital records and respond to any Constitutional grievances from the citizens, can question

Constitutionality of any law, statute or ordinance? How can Federal Judiciary defendsomething so indefensible?

Taitz was forced to seek protection of the UN

As Taitz was subjected to capricious sanctions by Judge Land, as well as a full tirade of insultscoming from Judge Land, it became fodder for the pro-Obama far left media to bombard Taitzwith onslaught of insults and harassment. She and her whole family were subjected tointimidation and harassment. There were daily attacks of hacking and destruction of her

websites, hacking into her Pay-pal account, tampering with her car, whereby an emissions hosewas disconnected. Taitz could not find any assistance of law enforcement and was forced to filea complaint with United Nations Commissions on Civil Rights Defenders, as well as become amember of the International Criminal Bar in Hague. Not addressing the issue of sanctions,assessed against an attorney, who was defending Constitutional rights of citizens in the face oftrampling of such rights by some in power, means green light on attacks, intimidation andharassment by thugs in the media and in the populace at large on any Constitutional attorney.

Stay of sanctions is warranted

Irreparable harm- no monetary award will compensate for the harm suffered

Sanctions assessed by Land constitute an irreparable harm to Taitz. Land not only assessedsanctions against Taitz and verbally assaulted and insulted her, but he also submitted his order tothe CA bar with the clear intent to undermine her law license and take her livelihood away fromher. If sanctions are not stayed and reversed, there will be an irreparable harm to the professionallicense of Taitz and her ability to earn livelihood.


14/26

Due to verbal assault by Land, Taitz was subjected and is subjected to horrific insults by themedia. Her reputation is irreparably harmed, if sanctions are not stayed. No financialcompensation will ever repair this harm.

Not only Taitz, but her family is subjected to horrific attacks. Her children got e-mails stating:

You poor kid, your mom will be thrown in prison, your mom will be thrown in a mentalinstitution. Someone hired a deranged artist, who was painting inappropriate paintings of Taitzunder the title Birther Orly Taitz, where Taitz was depicted being nude and giving birth, andsuch paintings were forwarded to Taitz children, in order to achieve maximum emotionaldistress for the whole family. Those highly offensive paintings were posted all over the Internetand in some newspapers. If sanctions are not stayed, there will be irreparable harm in the form ofcontinuous emotional distress to the whole family of Taitz.

Since Land has forwarded his order to the CA bar, there can be irreparable harm in the form ofnegative sanctions against her license.

Taitzs car was tampered with, a fumes emissions hose was disconnected by someone. Lives ofTaitz and her whole family are in danger. Taitzs web sites, Pay-pal and host server wererepeatedly hacked and sabotaged. As an example, MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthewsappeared in prime time, calling Taitz a malignancy and stating that she needs to be tied like awitch to the stake. Later, some insane Obama supporters were sending her e-mails andcomments, stating that she needs to be burned at the stake.

Staying and reversing the sanctions will send a clear message to law enforcement, that Taitzcase is not frivolous and there is a need for assistance on part of law enforcement for Taitz andher family.

Comparison of Hardships

Land has issued sanctions sua sponte. No party asked for those sanctions. US attorneys officedidnt even file an opposing brief or opinion brief. Land will suffer no hardship, if sanctionsimposed by him will be stayed and reversed.

Sanctions are against Public Policy

Sanctions imposed by Land are a clear attack on the First Amendment Right of Free Speech andRedress of Grievances, it is an attack on Civil, Constitutional rights of members of US militaryto seek legal representation in court and address their grievances in regards to constitutionality of

orders originating from Commander in Chief. These sanctions are a clear assault onConstitutional rights of US citizens. These sanctions are a clear assault on the rights of Civilright Defenders to bring legal actions to court and seek meaningful hearing with production ofevidence and judicial determination based on evidence presented and based on the Constitution.For too long this country has been on a slippery slope of using Federal courts to routinely denyUS citizens meaningful access to courts, as most constitutional challenges to actions ofoverbearing Federal government are being routinely denied on technical grounds of standing andjurisdiction. In this clear case, there was jurisdiction and standing, as injury to Taitz clients was


15/26

imminent, they were deployed from the central district of GA and they exhausted all availablemeans of redress within the military, as Taitz reached the highest judicial officers in the militaryby getting a response from Captain James Crawford, Legal Counsel to Admiral Mullin,Chairman of joint Chiefs of Staff. As outlined supra, not only Land had jurisdiction, he had aduty to hear the case on the merits. If these sanctions are allowed to stand, it will serve as a

precedent, where any judge will attack an attorney, who is a civil rights defender, simply toplease the President and quash dissidents in the US. This precedent will lead to total annexationand usurpation of civil rights in U.S

Actions by Judge Land in denying Motion to Recuse and Motion for

Enlargement of Time were improper

1. The language used by judge Land was rude. Unbecoming a judge and clearly showedbias. For example, when Taitz appeared before Land for the second time, representingCapt Rhodes, Land rudely described it repeated performance. He called her a birther,

which is a term minted by pro-Obama attack dogs in the media, who are not willing tocall Obama-gate, for what it is, a legal matter of Obamas illegitimacy to the USpresidency. It is mind boggling that a Federal judge would use a pejorative term andvoluntarily enroll in the ranks of Pro-Obama media thugs and would undertake uponhimself name calling and attack an attorney, who brings a legitimate legal action.

2. Land intentionally misrepresented the reason for withdrawal by the client. Taitzbrought to court an affidavit from the client and plaintiff in the case, Capt. Rhodes. In heraffidavit Capt Rhodes stated that her commanding officer has threatened her with courtmartial. (affidavit is part of the docket). Additionally Land assessed costs of litigationagainst the client. He never revealed, what was the amount of the costs and there is norecord of Capt Rhodes ever paying those costs, so it was clear that a deal was made,

whereby if Capt Rhodes decides not to pursue the appeal and if she dismisses Taitz as hercounsel, costs against Cpt. Rhodes would be waived by Land and/or military . Not onlythis issue of costs showed bias against Taitz, and reason for disqualification under 28USC 455 (a), it needs to be investigated by an independent counsel for purpose ofJudicial Misconduct by Judge Land and violation of Taitz civil rights under the color ofauthority by Judge Land.

3. Assertion by Land, that the Request for withdrawal was not timely, is incorrect, as Taitzhas made a 144 request as soon as she learned about bias.

4. Sanctions is a serious allegation, which would require a hearing. Request for enlargementof time and request for Judge Land to recuse himself were reasonable in relation to such aserious allegation by judge Land. Just to show impartiality in the matter, it would bereasonable for Judge Land to allow enlargement of time and step aside and let anotherjudge look at the case and the evidence. The fact that Land refused to grant even the mostminimal extension of time and refused to recuse himself was a further evidence of bias.

Judge Land erred in his assertions , that the injury was not imminent.

In both cases, viewed by judge Land, the injury was not hypothetical but imminent. BothMajor Cook and Captain Rhodes are members of US military and were deployed to the


16/26

military theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. Both officers were supposed todeploy in the matter of a couple of days. They were required to risk their lives and possiblytake lives of others, pursuant to Obamas orders. Risking ones life based on an order, thatis likely to be illegitimate, or even possibly illegitimate, constitutes an imminent injury andan action, asking for a hearing not frivolous. As such sanctions were not justified, were an

error of fact and law and an abuse of Judicial discretion.

Decision by Judge Land encouraged more litigation and encouraged revolting by themembers of the US military

While actions by Taitz were reasonablein order to put an end to further litigation of Obamasillegitimacy to presidency, the actions of Land only inflated the matter and became a reason ofmore litigation.

Currently a highly decorated army surgeon Lt. Col Lakin is facing court martial and putting onthe line eighteen years of honorable service and refusing redeployment to Iraq based on Obamas

illegitimacy for US presidency and position of Commander in Chief.

This court martial could have been avoided and further unrest in the military could have beenavoided if Land would have reviewed the case on the merits instead of using his position tosilence free speech of ones who legitimately were seeking verification of Obamas legitimacy forthe position of the Commander in chief.

Actions by Judge Land constituted violation of judicial ethics

Judge Land has deemed Taitz legal actions to be frivolous and sanctionable based on hisown judicial misconduct in both Cook and Rhodes cases, where actions of Land constituted

violation of Judicial ethics and abuse of judicial discretion.

1. Judge Land violated Judicial ethics and showed bias in not giving Taitz time to respond to themotion to dismiss in Cook v Good. Taitz didnt even have time to read the motion. Theseactions showed extreme bias and lack of judicial integrity, as well as abuse of judicialdiscretion.

2. Judge Land abused his judicial discretion and violated judicial ethics in not considering twomore plaintiffs, who joined the action of the underlying case of Cook v MacDonald.

3. Judge Land abused Judicial discretion by completely disregarding the fact that the issue of

Obamas illegitimacy to US presidency is one that is repeated, but continues to evade judicialreview.

4. Judge Land abused his Judicial discretion in refusing to consider valid arguments, specificallythe fact that the military pressured Simteck, a small defense contractor, employer of Major Cook,to fire him from his $120,000 job in retaliation for the fact that he filed a legal action,questioning Obamas legitimacy to US presidency and position of Commander in Chief.Similarly, judge Land abused his judicial discretion in not considering pressure on Captain


17/26

Rhodes, applied by the military, in order for her to dismiss her legal action and Taitz, as hercounsel.

Actions by judge Land are against Public Policy, endanger the public and endangerNational Security

Taitz has presented Land information, showing that Barack Obama used multiple Social Securitynumbers of deceased individuals. Since the Commander in Chief has all of the US weaponsarsenal is in his hands, particularly Nuclear arsenal, actions by the military officers and theirattorney in ascertaining identity and legitimacy of the Commander in Chief are reasonable andnot frivolous. Actions by a judge in attacking and harassing such members of the military andattacking their attorney with sanctions are unreasonable, go against Public Policy, endangernational security and need to be investigated and prosecuted by the Public Integrity Unit of thedepartment of Justice

Actions by Judge Land were akin to Aiding and Abetting Felony and Misprision of felony.

Exhibits submitted by Taitz showed significant likelihood of numerous felonies committed byObama:

1. Title 42 USC 408(a)(7)(B) misuse of Social Security number punishable under 18 USCby fine or imprisonment of up to five years or both

2. 18 USC 1621 perjury with a penalty of fine or imprisonment of not more than five yearsor both

3. 18USC 371 conspiracy to defraud United States with a penalty of fine or imprisonmentof not more then five years or both

4. As well as possibly other offenses, such as elections fraud, IRS fraud and othersThe fact that Judge Land refused to review any evidence, and attempted to intimidate Taitz withsanctions, assassinate her character and endanger her law license, means that he intentionallyused his authority to aid and abet those crimes. If this court does not reverse such sanctions anddoes not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all ofthe felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.

Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merelybringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

As shown in this brief, Lands order, loaded with insults and personal attacks and $20,000

sanctions amounted to nothing more, than persecution for bringing to his court a Civil Rightsviolation case. Does a federal judge possess power to do so? There is nothing in the Constitutionor statutes allowing such persecution. What can an attorney do to combat such persecution? Taitzis appealing to your Honor, Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice, as well as Civilrights Commission in Washington DC, Civil Rights defenders Commission with the UnitedNations and International Criminal Bar with the hope that sanity, civility and respect for CivilConstiututional rights will prevail.


18/26

Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused ahearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and Federal courts and theirattorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted by a presiding FederalJudge?

Today United States of America is at war in two enormous military theatres in Iraq andAfghanistan. Lives of our soldiers and officers, as well as civilians in those regions are at stake.Today, more than ever those soldiers need to know that they have a back: that they have aCommander in Chief they can trust and judges, who are fair and decide grievances based on thelaw and the Constitution and not their narrow personal interest and adherence to theadministration no matter what. When members of the military face bias, lack of impartiality andoutright personal attacks, that Major Cook and Captain Rhodes experienced, they becomedemoralized. Taitz brought on behalf of her clients important and reasonable questions,specifically a question of legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. The best and the only way tobring back the trust and respect towards the system of Justice in the minds of those soldiers, is torespond to their grievances and to order Rule 11 discovery, to show and prove that their

grievances were not frivolous.

Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear

and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorneyfor bringing to court a case that he doesnt feel like hearing on the merits, as it is notbeneficial for his career?

At the TRO hearing Land lashed out at Taitz, when she brought forward Thurgood Marshal andhis fight for civil rights. Land considered the crusade by Thurgood Marshal to be legitimate, butcrusade on behalf of the members of US military not to be legitimate, to be frivolous. A questionarises: Can a Federal judge pick and choose: whose civil rights are important and whose rights

are not important. When Federal judges pick and chose, it creates discrimination. It creates theworst kind of discrimination: not discrimination by an individual, but a discrimination by thegovernment, by the establishment. We witnessed so many examples, when policy by thegovernment created legalized discrimination and persecutions against groups of people:holocaust comes to mind, as well as slaughter of Armenian Christians in Turkey, massacres inSudan and in Obamas native Kenya. Lady Liberty is blind for a reason: military officer ready tobe shipped to the Middle east from fort Benning GA, has as many civil rights and protection, as aschool kid starting a school year in Columbus Georgia, or Alabama or Mississippi. Justice andadherence to the law and Constitution have to be factually correct and legally correct, notpolitically correct. If this is not happening, the nation will simply lose trust in the system and willtake matters in its own hands.

Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact andlaw, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility,which by default, affects the career of such judge?

Not long ago, in January of 2010 a well known judge in Mississippi, Bobby Delaughter ended uppleading guilty and sentenced to 18 months in Federal prison for public corruption, giving adecision to a party, who could help him reach a higher court.


19/26

In cases at hand situation was similar and even worse. Taitz represented clients who challengedlegitimacy of the sitting president. Who is in the best position to give a Federal judge apromotion, but the sitting president. For this reason alone, Land had to give the jury anopportunity to decide on the merits . When there was a clear indication of bias and Taitzrequested recusal of Land, it was his duty to avoid impartiality or even appearance of impartiality

and recuse himself. Moreover, a witness approached Taitz and forwarded to her a swornaffidavit, stating that he observed Attorney General Eric Holder at the coffee house across thestreet from the courthouse during Cook v Good hearing conducted by Land. Taitz has no abilityto ascertain if attorney General Holder was there or not, however it was possible, and in the spiritof zealous representation of her clients she had to raise this issue. Due to all of the abovementioned reasons, Land had to recuse himself. Land did none of the above. As such he violatedthe rules of judicial ethics.

Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without validvital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long formbirth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to

hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing tohear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

Today the whole nation lives in some type of surreal No Mans Land. As noted above Mr.Obama has never provided any vital records that would be accepted by any court of law. Over a100 legal actions were filed. No judge assumed jurisdiction. While judge David O. Carter inCentral District of CA initially assumed jurisdiction, he relinquished it after Mr. Obamasucceeded in placing one of attorneys from his defense firm Perkins-Coie as a law clerk for judgeCarter. Desperate citizens have organized into citizen Grand Juries, those Grand Juries indictedMr. Obama of voter fraud and elections fraud, and in some cases treason, yet no DA, no USattorney no judge assumed jurisdiction to act upon those indictments. Not long ago a prominentAfrican-American minister and talk show host, Dr. Manning conducted a trial upon thoseindictments, yet again, findings of that trial fell on deaf ears. At a recent planning commissionhearing in New York your Honor has stated that the Supreme Court has been evading theeligibility issue. As long as the courts are evading the issue, there is an incentive in attackingattorneys like Taitz, members of the military, dissenting US attorneys and others. When anindividual can get in the top position of power without providing any vital records and judiciaryis evading hearing this issue on the merits, each and every member of the public is de factoreduced to a level of a serf, a slave. There is a need for the courts to address this issue.

Can the courts indefinitely evade the issue of eligibility of US president, while endangeringthe well-being of the public?

There is an enormous importance in the issue of eligibility. This issue will not get resolved on itsown. We live in the time of one party control of both houses of congress and the White House.We live during the times, when ballot counting is left to the electronic scanners and votingmachines, which are known to be susceptible to rigging and hacking. One of such companies,Sequoia, from 2005-2007 was partially owned by the government of Venezuella through frontcompany Smartmatic. We dont know how many back doors or trap doors were installed in thisprogram, but we know those doors lead to Venezuella. In this environment there is not only a


20/26


21/26

hundreds of thousands of anchor babies and the issue of legal and illegal immigration on thefront burner, there is an urgent need to resolve this issue. Some quote the 14th amendment. Butwhat was the intent of the 14th amendment? It did provide citizenship to slaves, who didnt haveit at the time, however it is questionable and debatable whether it envisioned grantingUS citizenship and full benefits of free education and all the welfare benefits to millions of

anchor babies of people who are here illegally or even legally for a short time on a tourist visa ora student visa. Even if, arguendo, one comes to a conclusion that 14 th amendment guaranteesUS citizenship to anyone, regardless of allegiance to other nations, it still does not mentionNatural born status, that is needed for the US presidency. As many of followers of Taitz weresending Black law dictionaries to her, she traced all of the editions and found that the earliestBlack Law dictionary was published some 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, so therewas a need to find a legal treatise, a legal dictionary used by the framers of the Constitution.Such legal treatise happened to be the Law of Nations by well known Swiss diplomat andattorney Emer De Vatel. French and English versions of the Law of Nations were repeatedlyused by Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution mentions the Lawof Nations as a reference to source of powers of Congress in case of piracy at seas. Law of

Nations defies Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who arecitizens Les Droit Des Gens ou Principes De Loi Naturelle, 1958. So, Vatelles answer to theage old question: where does allegience lie, is it in the genes, is it in the blood or is it the soil?The answer: it is both. Vattel is saying that it is jus solis and jus sanguinis. Was thisdefinition consistent with the frame of mind of the founders of this Nation? Founders of thisNation were concerned about foreign usurpation. First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court JohnJay famously warned George Washington about the danger of foreigners in the position of theCommander in Chief. Framer of the 14th amendment John a Bingham quoted as stating thatnatural born citizens are ones, born in the US territory to parents who dont owe allegiance toany other sovereignties. So, while the framers of the Constitution provided for an exception forUS citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a grandfather clause for the firstpresidents, who could not be natural born, it is very clear that Natural born meaning of one bornin the country to citizen parents is the requirement for all the future presidents. It means, thateven if Mr. Obama were to produce an original birth certificate from HI with the name of thedoctor and the name of the hospital and were to provide an explanation, why is he using socialsecurity numbers from other states, he still is not eligible for US presidency due to his splitallegiance and multiple citizenships from birth until now. It means that Taitz was correct inbringing this issue to court in front of judge Land on behalf of her clients Major Cook andCaptain Connie Rhodes, it means that her actions were justified, not frivolous and notsanctionable. Even if it is found that Mr. Obama somehow miraculously can pass Constitutionalmuster for US Presidency, questions raised by Taitz were reasonable, appropriate, related to theduties of her clients and important to be resolved for future generations of Americans whohopefully will still have Constitutional right to elect a Constitutionally eligible president.

In summary: Sanctioned were not justified and represented an abuse of judicial discretion.The decision by Judge Land was nothing more but a hit job on a Civil Rights defender by amember of the judiciary, who was pandering to the administration. This decision was decried bythe judiciary and media all over the world, as an example of start of tyranny in the United States,


22/26

as an example of the dictatorial regime, where the citizens are prevented from a meaningfulaccess to courts, where a person can get to the top position of power without providing any vitalrecords to prove his legitimacy, and when judiciary is used as a tool to subdue citizens andprevent attorneys from upholding citizens rights in assessing legitimacy of such person at thepinnacle of power.

Wherefore the appellant respectfully requests:

1. stay and reversal of sanctions wrongfully assessed against her by Judge Clay D. Land

2. rule 11 limited discovery of Mr. Obama s vital records, to show that the legal action, for

which Taitz was sanctioned was justified

3. sua sponte assignment to the Independent Prosecutor the information on the underlyingcase for purpose of investigation, if indeed a deal was made, where plaintiff Capt. Rhodesdismissed Taitz as her counsel in exchange for waiver of costs asserted against her by

Judge Land and department of Defense.

3. sua sponte assignment to the independent Prosecutor and public integrity unit evidenceof Obamas illegitimacy to US presidency, provided in underlying cases of Cook v Goodand Rhodes v MacDonald for prosecution under Title 18, 1961.

3. cost and reasonable fees of appeal.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq

Independance Day

07.04.10

Applicant attests that everything in the above pleadings is true and correct to the best of herknowledge.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Exhibits:

1. TRO request in Rhodes v MacDonald

2. Order by Judge Land

3. Transcripts from the hearings in Rhodes v MacDonald


23/26

4. Affidavit by Investigator Sankey, brought to demonstrate multiple social security numbersconnected in the National databases to the name of Barack Obama. Neither of those numberswere issued in Hawaii.

5. Affidavit of Forensic Document Expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted to the District court,

brought as evidence, that short form certification of life birth provided by Barack Obama to thepublic, cannot be considered as genuine without examining the original birth certificate stillsealed in the Health Department in Hawaii

6. Affidavit of investigator Susan Daniels, brought to show that Barack Obama used multiplesocial security numbers of the deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.

7. Affidavit of Retired Senior Deportation Officer of the Department of Home Land SecurityJohn Sampson

8. Affidavit of Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes- brought to the District Court hearing to show pattern

of intimidation of Captain Rhodes

9. Affidavit of Robert D. Douglas, submitted to the district court and brought to show possibleundue influence on Judge Land, aside of usual conflict of interest in a case involving the sittingUS President

10. Appeals Brief in Rhodes v MacDonald

11. Selective Service verification, brought to show that Barack Hussein Obama is using socialsecurity number xxx-xx-4425, issued in CT to an individual born in 1890.

12 Republic of Kenya national assembly report of March 25th, Speech by Minster of LandsJames Orengo (p31), submitted to the 11 th circuit court of Appeals as new evidence of Kenyanbirth of Barack Obama, attested to by the high ranked official, Minister in the Government ofKenya.

13. Letter from Captain Crawford, ESQ, legal counsel to Admiral Mullin, Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, brought to show that remedies within the military were exhausted.

Certificate of Service

Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:

Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee

Elena Kagan


24/26

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania ave, N.W.

Washington DC 20530-0001

Hugh Randolph aderhold, JR

Assistant US Attorney

P.O.Box 1702

Macon, GA 31202-1702

US Commission

on Civil Rights624 Ninth Street, NWWashington, DC 20425 C

Public Integrity Section

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders

The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya

Palais des Nations


25/26

CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

International Criminal bar Hague

BPI-ICB-CAPI

Head OfficeNeuhuyskade 942596 XM The HagueThe NetherlandsTel : 0031 (70) 3268070 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0031 (70)3268070 end_of_the_skype_highlightingFax : 0031 (70) 3353531Email:[email protected]:www.bpi-icb.org

Regional OfficeAmericas / Bureau rgionalAmriques / Oficina regionalAmricas137, rue St-PierreMontral, Qubec, Canada, H2Y 3T5Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 001 (514) 289-8757 end_of_the_skype_highlightingFax : 001 (514) 289-8590Email:[email protected]:www.bpi-icb.org

Laura Vericat Figarola

BPI-ICB-CAPI

Secretaria Barcelona

[email protected]

Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 12

08029 Barcelona, Espaa

tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bpi-icb.org/http://www.bpi-icb.org/http://www.bpi-icb.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bpi-icb.org/http://www.bpi-icb.org/http://www.bpi-icb.org/http://www.bpi-icb.org/mailto:[email protected]://www.bpi-icb.org/mailto:[email protected]


26/26

Civil Rights Defenders

Orsolya Toth (Ms)

Human Rights Officer

Civil and Political Rights Section

Special Procedures Division

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

tel: + 41 22 917 91 51

email: [email protected]

Signed

/s/ Orly Taitz

DrOrly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jack-ryan
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

ORLY TAITZ APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION RE: SANCTIONS

Documents