Taitz Report 05.01.2013

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

1/38

Home

Breaking news! Defendant Barack Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al. Notice of

Default filed

Grinols Subpoenas

..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint

.Affidavit of Mike Zullo

1. Judd v Obama

2. Farrar v Obama

3. Taitz v Sebelius

4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial

5. Taitz v Astrue

6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update

7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas

Videos

Video: Orly before NH Election Committee

Dr. Orly Taitz, EsquireDefend Our Freedoms Foundation 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita

CA, 92688 Copyright 2010

World's Leading Obama EligibilityChallenge Web Site

If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.

Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385969http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385969http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=365289http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=365289http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=363262http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=363262http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=287541http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=287541http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190734http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190734http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190737http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190737http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190742http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190742http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190746http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190746http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190748http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190748http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=315406http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=315406http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=33356http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=33356http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=28018http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=28018http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=28018http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=33356http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=315406http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190748http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190746http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190742http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190737http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=190734http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=287541http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=363262http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=365289http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385969http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?page_id=385062http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

2/38

Mail donations to:Defend Our Freedoms

Foundation, c/o Dr. OrlyTaitz

29839 Santa MargaritaPkwy, Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita,

CA 92688.Contact Dr. Taitz [email protected]

[email protected] case of emergency,call 949-683-5411.

"It is not the critic whocounts; not the man who

points out how thestrong man stumbles, orwhere the doer of deedscould have done them

better.

The credit belongs to theman who is actually inthe arena, whose face is

marred by dust andsweat and blood; whostrives valiantly; who

errs, whocomes short again andagain, because there isno effort without errorand shortcoming; but

who does actually striveto do the deeds; who

knows greatenthusiasms, the great

devotions; who spendshimself in a worthy

cause; who at the bestknows in the end the

triumph of highachievement, and who atthe worst, if he fails, atleast fails while daring

greatly, so that his placeshall never be with those

cold and timid soulswho neither know

victory nor defeat." --Theodore Roosevelt,

April 23, 1910

When the people feartheir government, there

is tyranny.When the government

fears the people, thereis liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of
http://www.orlytaitzforussenate2012.com/http://www.taitzofficesuites.org/http://www.drtaitz.com/

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

3/38

universal deceit, tellingthe truthbecomes a

revolutionary act. --George Orwell

First they ignore you,

then they ridicule you,then they fight you,then you win. --Mahatma Gandhi

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr.

Taitz, Esq.

Dr. Taitz, Esq. has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.

Press Release: Appellants opening brief filed in Taitz v Obama,

Feinstein and EmkenPosted on | May 1, 2013 |No Comments

Press ReleaseLaw offices of Orly Taitz

Opening Brief in Taitz v Obama, Feinstein, Emken filed. Read below

California Court of Appeal Case Notification for: G047746

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE.. p2

I I . COURT ERRED I N I TS ASSERTI ON THAT THE CASE AT HAND WAS FI LED

PREMATURELY.p6

I I I . J UDGE MARGINI S ERRED AND ABUSED HIS J UDI CI AL DISCRETION I N RULING THAT THE

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED P ROPERLYp10

I V J UDGE MARGI NI S ERRED I N REGARDS TO REFERENCE

TO CODE15375.p15

V J UDGE MARGI NI S ERRED I N RULI NG THAT THE DECLARATION DI D NOT COMPORT WI TH THE

REQUI REMENTS OF THE 2015.5.p20

VI . J UDGE MARGINI S ERRED AND ABUSED HI S J UDI CIAL DI SCRETI ON I N DENYI NG MOTI ON TO

COMPEL P RODUCTI ON OF A REDACTED COLLEGE APP LI CATI ON FOR BARACKOBAMA.p21

VI I I CONCLUSI ONp30

CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE.p31

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE..p32

APPENDI X FI LED SEPARATELY FROM THE BRI EF

TABLE OF AU THORI TI ES
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417650

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

4/38

1. Cummings v. Stanley177 Cal.App.4th 493, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 284 Cal.App. 1 st.,2009. September 04,

2009.p8

2.McAllister v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 928, 87

Cal.Rptr.3d365.p9

3. Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1411, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d

719.p10

4. Katz v. Los GatosSaratoga Joint Union High School Dist. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 47, 53, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d

546p10

5.Amdahl Corp. v. County of Santa Clara (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 604, 611, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 486

..p10

6. Broadbent vs. Keith (1911) 13.Cal.App.382.p10

7.Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc.67 Cal.App.4th 295, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892

Cal.App. 1 Dist.,1998p13

8. Ellard v. Conway94 Cal.App.4th 540, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 Cal.App. 4

Dist.,2001.p 13

9. National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. United Lumber Co.24 Cal.App.3d 1012, 101 Cal.Rptr. 291Cal.App.

1972.p14

10. Denlinger v. Chinadotcom Corp.110 Cal.App.4th 1396, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 530

Cal.App. 6 Dist.,2003..p14

11.Taitz v Dunn30-2010-00381664..p17

12.Taitz v Dunn G045351el CA.p17

13.Doran v. Biscailuz(App. 1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 55, 274 P.2d 691p19

14. Taitz et al v Democratic Party et al12-cv-00280 Southern District of MS.p24

15. Keyes v Bowen 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS p29

16. MCA v The State of California 128 Cal.App.3d 225, 181 Cal.Rptr. 404..p30

17. Imuta v Nakana 233 Cal.App.3d 1570, 285 Cal.Rptr. 681..p3018.Silliman v The Municipal court of the Monterey Peninsula Judicial Circuit. 189 Cal.Rptr.318

..p30

19. Espinoza v classic Pizza 114 Cal.App.4th 968, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 381, 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 476, 04

Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 35, 2004p31

20.http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary//pdf2012-complete-sov.pdf

..p7

21. election code 16421..p

22. election Code 15375.p

23. Cal C.C.P. Section 410.10..p 12

24.Cal.C.C.P. 415.20(a, b) p1325. CODE 15375.p14

26. elections code 16100p19

27.elections code 16101p19

28.elections code 18203p19

29.elections code 18500..p19

30.elections code 16200..p19

31.CA code of Civ Pro 396 (a), (b)..p19, 20
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

5/38

32.2015.5.p20

33. Cal CCP 1987.2 p29

34.Article1, 1, cl 5 U.S. Constitution .p28

Inbo

[email protected]:30 PM (12 hours ago)

to m

[email protected], the following transaction has occurred in:

Taitz v. Obama et al.

Case: G047746 4th div3 DistrictDate (YYYY-MM-DD): 2013-04-30

Event Description: Appellants appendix and opening brief filed.Notes:

1 vol appendix

For more information on this case, go to:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746

Do not reply to this e-mail. Messages sent to this e-mail address will not be processed.

CASE G 047746

I N THE FOURTH DI STRI CT COURT OF APP EAL

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ORLY TA I TZ

APPELLANT

V

BARACK OBAMA, DI ANE FEI NSTEI N, ELOZABETH EMKEN

APPELLEES

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

APPELLANTS OPENI NG BRI EF

__________________________________________________________________

ORLY TAITZ

29839 SANTA MARGARITA STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

PH949-683-5411FAX949-766-7603

[email protected] PRO SE

I . BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE

This elections challenge was brought by Dr. Orly Taitz, (hereinafter Taitz) who was a GOP candidate on the

ballot in 2012 election and elector in the state of California. The case has two parts: one part provided the

court with sworn affidavits of relational data analysts and admissions of election officials, showing as many

as one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the databases, voters who are allegedly 150 years old

and 200 years old still voting, while on the other hand eligible voters being prevented from voting according

to their sworn and notarized affidavits. Second part of the case provides over 100 pages of sworn affidavits

of top law enforcement officials and official records, showing that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry

Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Soebarkah committed fraud and ran for the position of the U.S. President and

established his eligibility for the position of the U.S. President based on all forged and fraudulently obtained
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2032227&doc_no=G047746mailto:[email protected]

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

6/38

IDs: E-verify and SSNVS records showed that Obama used a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which

was never assigned to him, forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate, last name not legally

his and Indonesian citizenship. Not only Obama never had any valid IDs to show him as a natural born

citizen, as required based on Article 2, section1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, all of the evidence showed

that he never had any IDs to show any citizenship and any legal status for him. While the evidence against

Obama and evidence of elections fraud was gradually developed and it evolved during the past 4 years, one

thing remained constant: desire of courts to use any and all excuses to cover up elections fraud and cover

up Obamas use of forged and stolen IDs. There were multiple challenges filed all over the country by some

45 licensed attorneys and hundreds of pro se litigants. So far not one single case was heard on the merits.

Obama consistently refused to comply with any and all subpoenas by all the attorneys and litigants and so

far not one single judge held Obama accountable, not one single judge issued an order to compel production

of the original wet ink vital records of Obama while all of the copies released to the public were deemed by

dozens of experts to be crude laughable forgeries. In general we are seeing a vicious cycle and all three

branches of the government not acting as independent branches that are supposed to provide a system of

checks and balances. We are seeing reports of FBI and CIA agents and informers working as aids for

congressmen, editors of major papers and as staff attorneys and attorney-law clerks for highly positioned

judges. This provides an unprecedented level of censorship which was exacerbated by 9/11. This system

leaves the U.S. citizens effectively deprived of their First Amendment right for Redress of Grievances, and

often elections fraud cases, particularly ones dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by Obama,

are being dismissed on technicalities, excuses. There were instances of retaliation by members of the

judiciary against members of the U.S. military and civil rights leaders and attorneys seeking to end elections

fraud and seeking an adjudication on the merits in relation to Obamas forged IDs. This continued in the

Superior court of CA, Orange county division, in the case at hand. As defendants were not responding,

Plaintiff Taitz attempted three ex- parte hearings. At the first hearing Judge Sanders requested that Plaintiff

serve the defendants again, even though they were already served. Plaintiffs served the defendants again

through fax and e-mail as required by Judge Sanders. For the second hearing Judge Sanders did not want tobe involved in this hot potato case and she asked Judge Luesebrink to conduct the hearing. It is noteworthy

that at the second hearing Judge Luesebrink did not find any deficiency with the service of process. He

found it to be sufficient and decided to rule on the merits and stated that the evidence is not sufficient for

invalidation of the election results in the ex-parte injunction hearing. As November 7 general election was

approaching an being mindful of the statement by judge Luesebrink that the evidence is not sufficient, Taitz

requested yet another emergency hearing and sought a motion to compel release of Obamas college

registration from nearby Occidental college. Since Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen in his school

records from Indonesia and used last name Soetoro and was removed from his mothers passport records as

he obtained allegiance to another sovereignty (Indonesia), it was reasonable and in good faith for the

plaintiff to seek Obamas college application, as it would provide the last necessary bit of evidence of hisforeign citizenship and his foreign allegiance after the age of majority and his lack of legitimacy to the U.S.

Presidency. Ex Parte emergency hearing was justified and in good faith in light of an upcoming U.S. General

election. By that time the case was transferred to the third judge, Charles Marginis. At the November 1st

hearing Judge Marginis initially stated that he tends to believe that the evidence is insufficient. During the

hearing Judge Marginis was rude, made assertions that were flagrantly erroneous and not only was seeking

to dismiss the case of inconvenient truth, but also was seeking to defame and slander Taitz and harass and

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

7/38

intimidate her with sanctions in order to discourage her and others from continuing to fight the elections

fraud.

As an example, during the hearing Judge Marginis made a demeaning and untrue statement Evidence does

not come from the Internet. Taitz responded by challenging Marginis to show, which part of the evidence in

the case came from the Internet. She responded that the evidence of the elections fraud came from the

official records of the Secretary of State of California, from the affidavits of law enforcement officers and

official records. Moreover, the sufficiency of the evidence was to be decided at trial, there was no

justification to dismiss the case without trial. As Judge Marginis saw that he cannot show justification in

dismissing the case based on insufficiency of evidence, he came up with other reasons, mainly insufficiency

of service, whereby in his order he made flagrantly erroneous statements in order to misrepresent

sufficiency of service and custom tailor it for dismissal. Specific points challenging the validity of dismissal

are presented below.

I I . COURT ERRED I N I TS ASSERTION THAT THE CASE AT HAND WAS FI LED PREMATURELY.

Court dismissed the challenge claiming that the challenge was filed early, it was not ripe.

16421 states that in primary election the challenge has to be brought within 5 days of the completion on

the canvassing. Taitz called the office of the Secretary of State and asked to talk to the Elections Division

and asked for the official end of canvassing. She was told that it was July 3. Five days from July 3rd was

July 8th, which fell on the weekend, therefore she filed on July 9th. The challenge was filed timely and the

court is erred in dismissing the case, claiming that it was filed prematurely.

The court claimed that Taitz filed 4 days early because on the web site of the Secretary of State the

elections results were filed four days later. Petitioner was justified in relying on the information given to her

by the office of the Secretary of State and in light of a very small window of opportunity, only 5 days to file

a challenge, she acted prudently and reasonably in filing 5 days after the end of canvassing date given to

her by the office of the Secretary of State.

Moreover, the court inserted in its opinion evidence which is not on the record and which is not correct.

In his opinion (Appendix Document 1 p. 1 Order to Dismiss) Judge Marginis claims that the filing was 4 daysearly because he saw a notation on the web site of the Secretary of State at

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary//pdf2012-complete-sov.pdf

When plaintiff entered this url it showed code 404 page not available. (Appendix Document 2 Screen Shot

showing that the aforementioned page

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary//pdf2012-complete-sov.pdf

is not available. While Judge Marginis accused Taitz of gathering unreliable evidence from the Internet, even

though she provided him with sworn affidavits of law enforcement officials, the fact of the matter is that

Judge Marginis was the one, who based his opinion on some data he found on the internet which is indeed

not reliable and not available.

So, Judge Marginis had taken upon himself to act not as an unbiased judge, but as a defense attorney, hehad dismissed the case of elections fraud of national importance based on the fact that he personally went

outside the record, searched for some web site announcement, which is not even available and cannot be

verified by the Court of Appeals and on this basis he decided that the case was filed 4 days early and

dismissed it as being filed too early, not being ripe.

Moreover, the meaning and intent of the Section 16421 is to file an election contest quickly, particularly in a

primary election, so that delayed filing of the contest does not impede the upcoming general election.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdfhttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/pdf2012-complete-sov.pdf

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

8/38

Cummings v. Stanley177 Cal.App.4th 493, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 284 Cal.App. 1 st.,2009. September 04, 2009.

In Cummings a contest of an election of the Republican Central Committee members was filed.

The more difficult task before us is to determine if an election to a party central committee is also a

primary election for purposes of the election contest provisions of

sections 16401, subdivision (d), and16421. This court examined section 16421 and ruled that it is not

bound by the interpretation by the lower court and it has to interpret what is the reasonble meaning of the

legislature in drafting of the aforementioned statute.

When we interpret the meaning of statutes, our fundamental task is to ascertain the aim and goal of the

lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.

( McAllister v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 928, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 365.)We take a

three-step sequential approach to interpreting statutory language. First, we will examine the language at

issue, giving the words of the statute their ordinary, everyday , meaning. 177 Cal.App.4th 493, *508, 99

Cal.Rptr.3d 284 If we conclude that the statutory meaning is free of doubt, uncertainty, or ambiguity, the

language of the statute controls, and our task is completed. Second, if we determine that the language is

unclear, we will attempt to determine the Legislatures intent as an aid to statutory construction. In

attempting to ascertain that intent, we must examine the legislative history and statutory context of the act

under scrutiny. Third, if the clear meaning of the statutory language is not evident after attempting to

ascertain its ordinary meaning or its meaning as derived from legislative intent, we will apply reason,

practicality, and common sense to the language at hand. If possible, the words should be interpreted to

make them workable and reasonable, practical [citations], in accord with common sense and justice, and

to avoid an absurd result

( Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1411, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 719.)The

interpretation of statutes presents a question of law for our independent review. As the matter is a question

of law, we are not bound by evidence on the question presented below or by the lower courts interpretation.

( Katz v. Los GatosSaratoga Joint Union High School Dist. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 47, 53, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d

546;see alsoAmdahl Corp. v. County of Santa Clara (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 604, 611, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 486.)Moreover, even if this court were to believe that Taitz filed her election challenge too early, which is

absolutely not the case, Judge Marginis contradicts himself in claiming that this deficiency cannot be cured,

as he himself quotes Broadbent vs. Keith (1911) 13.Cal.App.382 premature filling dies not impede electors

right to file anew after election). This clearly contradicts the finding by Judge Marginis that it was an error

not capable of being cured. Judge Marginis claimed that this error cannot be cured as he claims that the

Plaintiff failed to serve the defendants, however this statement is erroneous both legally and factually, as all

of the parties were properly served, as shown in the following section.

These actions by Judge Marginis represent an error and an abuse of judicial discretion.

I I I . J UDGE MARGINI S ERRED AND ABUSED HIS J UDI CI AL DISCRETION I N RULING THAT THE

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED PROPERLY1. Appendix shows Defendant Barack Obama (Hereinafter Obama) being served properly several times.

True and correct copy of the proof of service by samedayprocess.com shows Obama being served on both

October 26 and October 31 by the professional process server SameDayProcess through the U.S. Attorneys/

attorney General office at 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC. Appendix pp.5,6,7, 23-35

Additionally he was served through certified mail on July 10, 2012.
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16401&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=159FD1A6&referenceposition=SP%3b5ba1000067d06&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16401&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=159FD1A6&referenceposition=SP%3b5ba1000067d06&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16421&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16421&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16421&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2017780476&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2017780476&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2017780476&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2017780476&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2012462877&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2012462877&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2012462877&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2012462877&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004178250&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004178250&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004178250&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004178250&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004178250&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2004258340&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2012462877&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=7047&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&serialnum=2017780476&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16421&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=159FD1A6&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000206&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CAELS16401&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2019752580&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=159FD1A6&referenceposition=SP%3b5ba1000067d06&utid=8

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

9/38

2. Defendant Elizabeth Emken was served on 10.30.2012 by personal service at her address at 243 Morris

Ranch Ct. Danville, CA 94526 by Alexander Gofen, who signed the proof of service. additionally she was

served by certified mail on July 10, 2012. Appendix p 8-9

3. Defendant Diane Feinstein was served with the complaint through certified mail on 07.10.2012. Her

attorney Lanse Olson from the law firm Olson Hagel called Plaintiff Taitz to find out what is it about and

asked Taitz to forward to him the pleadings. Affidavit of legal assistant Yulia Yun filed with the Superior

court on July 13, 2012 states that she talked to Ms. Feinseins attorney Mr. Olson and forwarded the

pleadings to him at the e-mail address he provided at [email protected]. Additionally Mr. Gofen filed

proof of service on 10.30.2012, where he stated that he appeared at Ms. Feinsteins office on 10.30.2012,

where he was advised that Ms. Feinstein refuses to accept personal service of process and she demands

service to be performed via mail or fax. Attachment by Mr. Gofen dated 10.30.2012 states that he served

Ms. Feinstein via both certified mail and fax. Proof of service contains a certified mail receipt, postal receipt,

fax printout and proof of service and Declaration of Yulia Yun Appendix pp. 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 27-38.

It appears that Judge Margins did not review all the documents in the case when he rendered his opinion.

Additionally Cal C.C.P. Section 410.10 states that

Strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required; substantial compliance is

sufficient. Statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate

service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.

Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc.

67 Cal.App.4th 295, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892

Cal.App. 1 Dist.,1998. Strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required;

substantial compliance is sufficient.

Wests Ann.Cal.C.C.P. 410.10 et seq.Statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally

construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by

the defendant.Wests Ann.Cal.C.C.P. 410.10 et seq.

Ellard v. Conway94 Cal.App.4th 540, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2001.

December 12, 2001 Substitute service of notice on defendants in fraud action was proper; plaintiffs were

diligent in attempting personal service by contacting the United States Postal Service and obtaining a

current address, and plaintiffs were required to resort to substitute service at a private/commercial post

office box.

Wests Ann.Cal.C.C.P. 415.20(a, b).

Service must be made upon a person whose relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely

than not that they will deliver process to the named party.

National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. United Lumber Co.24 Cal.App.3d 1012, 101 Cal.Rptr. 291

Cal.App. 1972. lessee, under New York law, consented to receive service of process by delivery of notice

to one other than a director or officer, and New York court did not lack jurisdiction over lessee on ground

that service of process on clerical employee was not made on proper party to receive service., New York

procedures under which California corporation was deemed to have consented to receive service of process

by delivery of notice to one other than a corporate director or a corporate officer did not violate basic due

process, in absence of unequal bargaining power or other aspects of adhesion contracts, and thus judgment
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS415.20&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2001544734&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D45C4A2E&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS410.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1998213002&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=E1FC9706&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD&rs=WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE00033836)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&spa=003204909-4000&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&utid=8

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

10/38

obtained in New York against such corporation was entitled to full faith and credit in California. Denlinger v.

Chinadotcom Corp.

110 Cal.App.4th 1396, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 530

Cal.App. 6 Dist.,2003. Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, which prohibits interference with the freedom to

send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad, authorizes service of process by

mail; Convention applies only to service of process, service of process by mail is consistent with

interpretative materials such as the report of the Commission, Handbook, and State Department, and

allowing service of process by mail promotes a smooth and efficient international legal system. Hague

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters,

Art. 1 et seq.,

Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4note, 28 U.S.C.A.;Wests Ann.Cal.C.C.P. 413.10(c).

a. Barack Obama was served by the personal service of a professional server of process through the

Department of Justice, as Obama demands to be served through the Department of justice, additionally he

was served repeatedly through the certified mail with receipts attached.

b. Candidate for the U.S. Senate Elizabeth Emken was served by a personal service and proof of service was

filed.

c. Proof of service on Diane Feinstein was filed and the process server attested to the fact that he arrived at

the elections Headquarters for Diane Feinstein the staff for Diane Feinstein advised him that they refuse to

accept personal service of process and the only way it will be accepted, is by mail. Plaintiffs submits both

the Proof of service certification and proof of service receipts. the court erred and abused its discretion in

ruling that the defendants were not served.

I V J UDGE MARGI NI S ERRED I N REGARDS TO REFERENCE TO CODE 15375

Judge Marginis writes: In addition, in the case of an office for which candidates are certified for the ballot by

the Secretary of state (which includes Senators and President-see election Code 15375), only Sacramento

Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear the challenge. However, when one examines 15375, it is not whatthe statutes says. The statute says that elections officials simply need to forward to the Secretary of State

the Results of the election.

CAL. ELEC. CODE 15375 : California Code Section 15375

The elections official shall send to the Secretary of State within 35 days of the election in an electronic

format in the manner requested one complete copy of all results as to all of the following:

(a)All candidates voted for statewide office.

(b)All candidates voted for the following offices:

(1)Member of the Assembly.

(2)Member of the Senate.

(3)Member of the United States House of Representatives.(4)Member of the State Board of Equalization.

(5)Justice of the Court of Appeal.

(6)Judge of the superior court.

(c)All persons voted for at the presidential primary. The results for all persons voted for at the presidential

primary for delegates to national conventions shall be canvassed and shall be sent within 28 days after the

election.
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1004365&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=USFRCPR4&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1004365&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=USFRCPR4&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS413.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS413.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS413.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS413.10&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1004365&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=USFRCPR4&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=2003527434&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Full&tf=-1&pbc=D5CBBEDF&utid=8

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

11/38

(d)The vote given for persons for electors of President and Vice President of the United States. The results

for presidential electors shall be endorsed Presidential Election Returns.

(e)All statewide measures.

(f)The total number of ballots cast. The results of all of the state wide elections.

In 2010 the same plaintiff Taitz has filed an election challenge of another state wide election, specifically

election for the Secretary of State. This challenge was filed in the same very court, in the superior Court of

Orange County as Taitz v Dunn 30-2010-00381664 and the Presiding judge Jeffrey Glass found that there

was jurisdiction, the case proceeded, however the court ruled that Candidate Dunn was eligible. The case

went further to the Court of Appeal and was heard by this very court Taitz v Dunn G045351, Ca Court of

Appeal for the Fourth District and again the court found jurisdiction and did not find that this election

challenge of the State wide election had to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and that the Superior

court of California and the Fourth District court of appeal were not the proper court or did not have

jurisdiction. Ultimately the case was decided in relation to eligibility of Candidate for the Secretary of State

Dunn. Both superior court of Orange County and This court of Appeal found the case to be in a proper court

with proper jurisdiction.

As such the plaintiff was justified in filing another challenge of another state wide election in the same very

court were another state wide election was heard on the merits only a year earlier.

Similarly, two other judges held hearings in this case previously: Judge Sanders and Judge Luesebrink

Neither one of the found that they do not have jurisdiction over this elections challenge. Judge Sanders

simply continued the case and ordered the Plaintiff to e-mail or fax the defendants in regards to the notice

for ex parte hearing to be continued to July 13. Judge Luesebrink previously denied an ex parte motion

ruling the case to be weak, which is a ruling on the merits. Prior to ruling on the merits Judge Luesebrink

had to determine that he has jurisdiction. He could not rule that the ex-parte motion should be denies as

weak if he had no jurisdiction to do so.

Moreover, Elections statutes are construed liberally

2. Errors or irregularitiesThat contestant filed affidavit in superior court instead of filing statement of grounds of contest with county

clerk and stated that he was proceeding under 20300 et seq., instead of 20000 et seq., may not

necessarily be fatal to maintenance of action to contest election of county sheriff at primary election as a

general election contest.Doran v. Biscailuz(App. 1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 55, 274 P.2d 691.

Additionally, on July 10. 2012, one day after filing the challenge, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief

under 16100, 16101, 18203, 18500, 16200. Neither one of these statutes require filing in Sacramento.

Lastly, even if one finds that this challenge should have been filed in Sacramento county, there is nothing

preventing the court from transferring the case to the Sacramento county sua sponte by the courts own

order or allowing the plaintiff to file a motion to transfer.

Cases are transferred on a daily basis, venues are changed on a daily basis, this is not a basis for completelydismissing the case or denying leave to amend.

California Code of Civil Procedure states:

396. ( a) No appeal or petition filed in the superior court shall be dismissed solely because the

appeal or petition was not filed in the pr oper state court.

( b) I f the superior court lacks jurisdiction of an appeal or petition, and a court of appeal or the

Supreme Court w ould have jurisdiction, the appeal or petition shall be transferred to the court
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/html/compose/static_files/l%20I1E03AED3015511DF85DCEFADBAC57E55https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/html/compose/static_files/l%20I1E03AED3015511DF85DCEFADBAC57E55http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=0000661&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=Y&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=7061231&serialnum=1954113451&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B3373ED3&utid=8https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/html/compose/static_files/l%20I1E03AED3015511DF85DCEFADBAC57E55

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

12/38

having jurisdiction upon terms as to costs or otherw ise as may be just, and proceeded w ith as if

regularly filed in the court having ju risdiction.

So, based on 396 (a) and ( b) J udge Marginis erred and abused his judicial discretion in

dismissing the case instead of transferring it to another county, namely Sacramento County

Superior Court.

V J UDGE MARGI NI S ERRED I N RULI NG THAT THE DECLARATION DI D NOT COMPORT WI TH THE

REQUI REMENTS OF THE 2015.5.

Judge Marginis made a general statement that the declaration did not comport with the requirement of

2015.5, however he did not provide any specifics, as to what in the declaration of the candidate and elector

Taitz did not comport with the 2015.5 and why it cannot be cured by an amendment.

This assertion by judge Marginis is not based on any fact and law and represents an error of both fact and

law and needs to be reversed.

Plaintiff will not provide further discussion on this statute, as there is no explanation and no specifics, what

was not compliant in the declaration and this is not a stated reason for the dismissal of the case.

VI . J UDGE MARGI NI S ERRED I N DENYI NG MOTI ON TO COMPEL PRODUCTI ON OF RECORDS FOR

OBAMA AND SANCTI ON THE PLAI NTI FF FOR SEEK A MOTI ON TO COMPEL.

Appellant Taitz appeared before Judge Marginis on October 29 and requested a leave of court to file an ex-

parte motion to compel production of college registration for Barack Obama from the Occidental College.

Taitz argued during that hearing that this is a matter of national importance, that the complaint and further

pleadings showed that Barack Obama is using a forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate,

a Social Security number not assigned to him and he is listed as a citizen of Indonesia in his mothers

passport records. Judge Marginis granted Taitz ex-parte motion to hold an ex parte hearing on her Ex parte

motion to compel production of Obamas Occidental college registration from the custodian of record

Occidental College. Motion hearing was scheduled by Judge Marginis on November 1, only 6 days before the

November election. Due to the fact that Obama was not responding after being served, plaintiffs sought therecords in question from the custodian of records, Occidental college.

Occidental college is not a party to this legal action, but only a custodian of records, Taitz had to apprise

Occidental of the hearing to compel production of records in its possession and she had to insure that the

representative of Occidental appears in court and provides the records to Judge Marginis. Taitz served

Occidental with summons to appear at the hearing. Summons were served through the personal service by

Joseph Dolz and Ellen Knowles . Appendix 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49 In this situation issuance of subpoena to

appear in court and provide records was reasonable.

The opposition by the Occidental college can be summarized in one sentence: Occidental college believed

that the required information was private, not public and needed either the consent of the former student or

court order to release the required records.Judge Marginis had to decide:

a. were the records private?

b. even if they were private, did the public interest outweigh Obamas privacy interest?

During the motion hearing Taitz argued that she is only asking for a redacted college registration,

specifically 4 words within the registration: Obamas first and last name in the application/registration, his

citizenship and time and place of birth. Obama already released all of this information. He claims that his

legal last name is Obama, that he is a U.S. citizen, not a citizen of any other country and that he was born

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

13/38

in Honolulu HI in August 4, 1961. Since Obama himself made this information public and was obligated to

make this information public in order to run for the U.S. President, there was no private information to be

released. At issue was not privacy but rather fraud and forgery, as evidence showed Obama committing

fraud and using forged IDs.

As such any determination of such information to be private would be an error.

b. Even if one were to believe that Obamas citizenship and place of birth were somehow private, at issue

was whether the public interest outweighed the public interest?

This part had to be argued by Obama. Obama did not show up. All that custodian of record had to do, was

seek determination by the court whether requested information was private and whether the court would

issue an order to release it. This was supposed to be a short hearing with minimal attorneys fees of around

$200-$300, if attorney was even necessary for the custodian of records. However, Jay Ritt, hired by the

Occidental, happens to be a friend and neighbor of the personal attorney for Obama, California attorney

Scott J. Tepper, who is currently representing Obama as a defendant in a RICO caseTaitz et al v Democratic

Party et al12-cv-00280 Southern District of MS, where Taitz and others are suing Obama and his

accomplices for a Racketeering scheme to defraud the voters and use forged IDs. In that case Taitz filed a

motion with the court to sanction Tepper and his MS co-counsel Ed Begley for using a forged birth certificate

for Obama and seeking a judicial notice of it while having evidence that it is indeed forged. The motion is

still before the court.

Opposition by the Occidental college was not a typical opposition of the custodian of record who simply

wants the judge to rule whether the requested redacted record is subject to release, it was an opposition

written by an attorney de facto representing Obama and seeking to hide the truth and retaliate against the

whistle blower Taitz.

Over a hundred pages of sworn affidavits of law enforcement officials and experts showed Obama to be lying

and using forged IDs.

Judge Marginis had to take into consideration that the hearing was held on November 1, only 6 days before

the General election, the right for the public to know, whether Obama is a legitimate candidate or a criminalcommitting fraud and using forged IDs who colluded with a number of high ranking officials, attorneys and

some judges in a Racketeering scheme to defraud the nation, use forged IDs, stolen Social Security number,

last name not legally his and usurp the position of the Commander-in-Chief by virtue of fraud. As the U.S.

President is also a Commander in Chief, the whole national security is at stake, control of the U.S. nuclear

arsenal is at stake, the whole U.S. economy is at stake. Public interest is tremendous.

On the other hand Judge Marginis had to put on the scale Obamas interest to privacy. All of the requested

information was previously released by Obama himself. Even if it wouldnt be released, it had to be

released, as the U.S. citizenship and natural born status are prerequisites of the U.S. Presidency under

Article 2, 1, cl 5. So, not only there was a tremendous public interest, it clearly outweighed the

expectation of privacy if any connected to such release.Was there any other alternative means to obtain the required records? No, Obama was not responding in

spite of being served repeatedly. As stated in the motion, Occidental College refused to provide such records

repeatedly in response to subpoenas issued by the Plaintiffs in Keyes v Bowen 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-

GDS and in other cases. Based on the modus operandi of defendant Obama and his custodian of record

Occidental College that the only way to obtain the record and ascertain whether Obama is committing fraud,

is an order by the court to the custodian of record, Occidental college to release such information.

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

14/38

Was it reasonable for Taitz to seek required order to release records in an ex-parte emergency hearing? Yes

it was reasonable and highly prudent, as the hearing was only six days before the election.

Based on all of the above Judge Marginis erred in not granting the motion to release required redacted

registration for Obama from his custodian of record.

Moreover, even if he ruled to deny the motion, there was absolutely no justification to sanction Plaintiff Taitz

for filing a motion seeking a release of such record.

In order to sanction a party under Rule 1987.2 a party had to show that a party being sanctioned did

something oppressive or acted in bad faith.

Cal CCP 1987.2

(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made undersubdivision (c)

of Section 1987or underSection 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable

expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorneys fees, if the court finds

the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the

requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. following precedents show that the case at hand does not fall

within cases sanctionable under 1987.2

MCA v The State of California 128 Cal.App.3d 225, 181 Cal.Rptr. 404 Request for sanctions and attorneys

fees was denied, even though a party had to travel out of state and participate in both trial and appeal.

Imuta v Nakana 233 Cal.App.3d 1570, 285 Cal.Rptr. 681Where court made no attempt to comply with

requirement of statute governing sanctions for frivolous motions that there be a writing reciting in detail the

conduct or circumstances justifying the order, sanctions imposed for motions to compel depositions and to

stay other depositions would be viewed as a discovery sanctions for purposes of determining appealability.

Silliman v The Municipal court of the Monterey Peninsula Judicial Circuit. 189 Cal.Rptr. 318 Municipal court

appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County, Harkjoon Paik, J., issuing a

peremptory writ commanding municipal court to set aside its decision imposing attorney fees on attorneys

and their clients in a criminal proceeding. The Court of Appeal, Elkington, J., held that: (1) relief by way of

the extraordinary writ of prohibition was legally available to attorneys and their clients; (2) the subpoenathat attorneys and their clients caused to be issued of the municipal court judge who issued search warrant

was properly quashed; and (3) attorneys who knowingly opposed the motion to quash subpoena, caused by

them to be issued and served without expectation of its success due to settled law, could not be

constitutionally ordered to pay attorney fees of the subpoenaed witness incurred in successfully making the

motion to quash. In the case at hand there was no explanation of what was oppressive or in bad faith done

by Plaintiff

Espinoza v classic Pizza 114 Cal.App.4th 968, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 381, 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 476, 04 Cal.

Daily Op. Serv. 35, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 38Trial court adequately articulated its reasons for imposing

sanctions when it specified they were based on partys service of a second subpoena duces tecum in

violation of two earlier rulings denying such discovery. While in Espinoza actions by the Appellant can beseen as oppressive and in bad faith, it is completely different from actions of the Plaintiff in the case at

hand, where the appellant issued a subpoena in violation of two prior orders, it is different from the case at

hand where there were no prior orders.

At the hearing Judge Marginis did not provide any explanation. He ordered Jay Ritt, attorney for the

Occidental to draft an order. The order drafted by Ritt simply pointed out a few deficiencies in the

subpoena served on the Occidental college prior to the motion hearing. Technical deficiency in the subpoena

does not represent oppressive behavior, does not mean bad faith. Prior argument showed that actions by
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987.1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=6572D7DE&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987.1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=6572D7DE&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987.1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=6572D7DE&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987.1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=6572D7DE&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=California&db=1000201&rs=WLW13.04&findtype=L&docname=CACPS1987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=003204909-4000&ordoc=1197797&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=T&pbc=6572D7DE&referenceposition=SP%3b4b24000003ba5&utid=8

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

15/38

Taitz were in good faith, in furtherance of a legitimate public interest and there was nothing oppressive in a

request for the court to release a redacted record which has a paramount public interest. Case cited

above show that the courts issue discovery sanctions very sparingly and judiciously and only in cases of

repeated abuse, oppression, bad faith. In the case at hand there were no prior order forbidding the plaintiff

to issue subpoenas or issue a motion to compel records or order to produce records. Plaintiff/ appellant

sought the redacted record in good faith, her actions were not oppressive. The court could issue an order

releasing a redacted record, which would not violate the Defendants privacy, but would serve public

interest. The order by the court for the Plaintiff to pay $4,000 of attorneys fees as a sanction and refusal to

stay imposition of such sanction pending motion for reconsideration and/or appeal was an abuse of a judicial

discretion. The order was not reasonable and did not follow established precedents or clear guidelines of the

statute at hand. Judge Marginis did not provide any explanation as to what was abusive or oppressive in

the actions by the Plaintiff and how awarding an exorbitant fee of $4,000 for a short hearing was in any

way reasonable. The order clearly represented an abuse of judicial discretion and should be reversed.

Actions by the lower court constitute Chilling effect on the First Amendment right to free speech and Redress

of Grievances, 5th and 14th Amendment right for Due Process, Equal Protection, and honest services under

the color of authority. An abuse of Judicial discretion by the lower court would discourage the public from

redress of grievances in relation to flagrant elections fraud, which would in turn undermine the Democratic

principles of our Consitutional Republic.

CONCLUSI ONJudge Marginis erred and abused his judicial discretion in dismissing the case. Judge Marginis erred and

abused his judicial discretion in denying an ex parte motion to compel production of the college application

for Defendant Barack Obama from the Custodian of Record Occidental College and in sanctioning the Plaintiff

for filing a motion to compel. The order should be reversed

Respectfully submitted

Orly Taitz

Appellant

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

16/38

CERTI FI CATE OF WORD COUNT

Total number of words is 6,280 words does not exceed allowed amount.

/s/ Orly Taitz

Category:Uncategorized

Michael Savage rips Obamas speech at WH stenographers brain deadleft to Lenin lackeys dinner

Posted on | May 1, 2013 |No Comments

Interesting that Savage is now talking about illegal immigrant numbers similar to the ones that I reported

before that were given to me by the senior deportation officer John Sampson. the government is lying about

immigration numbers as they are lying about everything else. They claim we have only 11 million Illegals. In

reality we have 42 million illegals. Latest numbers reported by Savage are 33 million.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417653http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

17/38

Obama losing power by Dick Morris

Posted on | May 1, 2013 |No Comments

Obama Losing PowerBy Dick Morris on April 30, 2013

Listen to the air going out of the economy. It sounds like an air mattress deflating.

As ObamaCare comes closer to becoming reality, its drawbacks or at the very least, its growing pains

alienate more and more of his erstwhile supporters. The presidents failure to pass a gun control bill was

more than a legislative reversal: he lost in the court of public opinion. Despite his histrionics exploiting the

Newtown, Conn., tragedy, he failed to move public opinion. In fact, polling suggests that it moved the other

way from a pro-gun-control consensus in the wake of the shootings to a pro-Second Amendment posture

after more reflection. The Boston bombings cast a harsh light on his failure to keep us safe and his weird

compromises with Islamic terrorism.

It might be a long, hot summer for the president.Leading the casualty list is President Obamas economic policy. After 0.4 percent growth in gross domestic

product in the last quarter of 2012, experts had expected a sharp rebound in the first quarter of 2013,

sparked by year-end bonuses. That didnt happen. The 2.5 rate was anemic at best. The fact that only

88,000 jobs were created in March of 2013 is pathetic. Indeed, the prospects for any kind of real growth this

quarter are sharply limited.

And more economic disaster beckons.

The stock market is artificially pumped up by desperate investors who are facing zero interest rates in their

safe, normal investment outlets. So these folks, who likely saw their portfolios take a crewcut in 2008 and

2009, are putting their money into CCC-rated securities junk. The bubble is going to burst, as they all do,

and their investments will come crashing down.

Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Administration has stepped in to offer mortgages to low-income people with

all of the shortcomings of those issued or insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a 3 percent

downpayment, artificially low teaser interest rates and high mortgage/value ratios. Wait until this crash

materializes.

Finally, the banks of the world are invested to the tune of $1.6 quadrillion (first time youve seen that word

in print?) in derivatives. There is not enough money in the Fed, the European Central Bank or China to cover

the losses that are in the offing. With the Feds balance sheet stretched as never before, there is little room

for error in this preposterous bank gambling.

And then theres ObamaCare. Set to go into effect in 2014, Americans are in for some sticker shock when

they see their health insurance premiums. The pleasant promises of a $2,500 per family savings will be seen

as the baloney they were when the president made them. And a great many Americans will find equally

disingenuous his promise that we can keep our current health insurance policies if we want to. With our

employers weighing whether to pay a $3,000 per employee fine for no coverage of a $15,000 health

insurance premium, it will be an easy decision. They will cancel their policies and offer no coverage. Their

decision will throw the employees to the mercy of the insurance exchanges Obama has established with

their hope of federal premium subsidies. But, as they are about to find out, the subsidies are only available
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646#respondhttp://www.dickmorris.com/obama-losing-power/http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-losing-power/http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-losing-power/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417646

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

18/38

up to about $75,000 in household income, and they presuppose that you pay a minimum of 7 percent of

your income on health insurance before they kick in.

Americans will be outraged when they realize how much they are going to have to pay. Young people are

going to realize that the hope of coverage is evanescent at best and the elderly will learn the grim truth

about Medicare rationing.

Protect Your Retirement Today Secure Your IRA or 401K with Gold & Silver. Free Kit


Jihadist Boston bombers received over 100,000 in state benefits

Posted on | April 30, 2013 |No Comments

$100G IN BENEFITS FOR BOMBERS


Benghazi report

Posted on | April 30, 2013 |4 Comments

truly

21approved

Submitted on2013/04/29 at 6:30 pm

more revealing:https://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdf

Please, look at the linkgreat pics of realAmericans boycottingall of our corrupt,

bought and paid forObama ass kissingmedia gathered for theWH media andHollywood lackeysdinner.0View Po


Does anyone know who is this man cursing me for asking sheriffs todo their job and file criminal complaints against Obama and hisaccomplices for fraud and use of forged IDs?


Andrew Vrba,PmG

Awaiting spam checkSubmitted on2013/04/29 at 11:12am

Link to contactinfo for police
http://www.fortressgoldgroup.com/lpfg988/?AID=482http://www.fortressgoldgroup.com/lpfg988/?AID=482http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436#respondhttp://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/tsarnaev_family_received_100g_in_benefitshttp://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/tsarnaev_family_received_100g_in_benefitshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344#commentshttps://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416929&cpage=1#comment-273210http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416929&cpage=1#comment-273210http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416929&cpage=1#comment-273210https://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttps://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttps://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=416929http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=416929http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=416929http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=273161#akismet-statushttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416910&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416910&action=edithttp://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416910&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416910&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416910&cpage=1#comment-273161http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=273161#akismet-statushttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416980http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=416929http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=416929http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=416929&action=edithttp://www.stopforumspam.com/add.php?username=truly&email=truly19%40aol.com&ip_addr=172.129.95.29&evidence=https%3A%2F%2Fgoodlatte.house.gov%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2F229%2Foriginal%2FLibya-Progress-Report.pdf&api_key=https://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttps://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdfhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416929&cpage=1#comment-273210http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=172.129.95.29&mode=detailhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344#commentshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417344http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/tsarnaev_family_received_100g_in_benefitshttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=417436http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.fortressgoldgroup.com/lpfg988/?AID=482

7/30/2019 Taitz Report 05.01.2013

19/38

6 [email protected]

Go to hell, Orly(There is a special place reserved for yourkind of scum)Americas sheriffs are a bit busy keeping their townsfolksafe. They dont need to be fighting your battles for you.Approve|Reply|Quick Edit|Edit|Spam|Trash|Check

SFS|Check HoneyPot|Report to SFS

chiefs andsheriffs in theU.S. Contactthem, let themknow that if the

do not launchcriminalinvestigationand do not file acriminalcomplaint withthe DA and AG,they will becomplicit andtried for treason,for aiding and

abettingelections fraud,forgery, SocialSecurity fraud,SelectiveService fraud,immigration andpassport recordsfraud0View Post


Disgusted chief of the immigration union officers slams the gang of 8corrupt senators seeking to destroy the sovereignty of this nation androbbing Americans of their jobs and benefits


Video: Disgusted ICE head finally faces down Gang of 8

April 23, 2013 byJaneen Capizola20 Comments

The head of the union representing immigration agents and staff slammed the Obama administration and

the Senates Gang of Eight for including illegal immigrants, but excluding law enforcement from providing

input on the new immigration reform legislation.President of the National Immigration and Customs
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=207.119.41.21&mode=detailhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=207.119.41.21&mode=detailhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/comment.php?c=273161&action=approvecomment&_wpnonce=c22d134355http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/comment.php?c=273161&action=approvecomment&_wpnonce=c22d134355http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderatedhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderatedhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderatedhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderatedhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?co