Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
CSB #223433
Ste 100
ph 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orly.taitz@gmail.com
On May 11, 2011 Judge Joseph Wilkinson in Eastern District of Louisiana issued an
order granting leave of court to file my Reply to opposition to intervene in case
10-1663 Hornbeck v Salazar. (Exhibit 1)_Reply and exhibits were filed. Decision
regarding motion to intervene was issued on May 12, 2011. (Exhibit 2) This order
and exhibits bear vital importance in the case at hand and show the following:
1. Other courts and districts refrain from deciding the issue of Barack Obama’s
legitimacy for US presidency, relying on the 9th Circuit to make a determination
in this matter.
2. Exhibits provided in Hornbeck v Salazar, particularly sworn affidavit of
typographic and scanning machines expert, Mr. Douglas Vogt, provide
irrefutable proof that Mr. Obama indeed posted on the official site White
House.gov a forgery and not a true and correct copy of an original birth
certificate, issued in 1961.
3. This fraud and uttering of a forged birth certificate, along with invalid Social
Security number, by an individual occupying the position of the President and
commander in chief of the US military, is so egregious and represents such a
clear danger to US National Security, that this issue needs to be decided in the
most expedient matter and appeal should be granted expeditiously.
4. I believe that the forgery, submitted by Mr. Obama, possibly included a birth
certificate number, originally issued to one Virginia Sunahara, born August 4,
1961 in Wahaina hospital and transferred to Kapiolani hospital, due to medical
complications, and deceased at Kapiolani and around August 5, 1961. In
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 3 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1
Certificate of Service
Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served
on the:
Assistant US ATTORNEYS
DAVID DEJUTE
ROGER WEST
US Commission
on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 4 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-1
Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530-0001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
Signed
I :.,*r ;
fll-,ltYt-lt F $
.:t l)a;l: !r;iLf)l1 t\
ri
\\q }t.{{;t5 i't.i.\]! :
"s
i\.tA{; isl't{A r' },: \,l'tr i,il I \5{ }\
KEli\l,l'tr *t Ll..g ,'Kt'-\', sALAZAR. Ili Hts ! i\lofian fcr lcar e of rgurl l* tilc :,t I'r.';rl.r tr.r
rlr't.'t{'t,{t- {-',"{pA{'t1 }' AS $}.{tt{F-1"!R\ ^ s
opp*sitir;n
t,5!l flf) s-t,\'l-ti$ tlF tlAR-t 1tF.I'I {iF
t\T,'-!{,lt}lt: R{}$t-.lt I "l}Oli" -+,tst}F_}, I5 \l*;lion hearing ln interr cnrr {}rh 'l $itr.
HMlf FIC'{,{1" CAPA{'iT} .{S "{a'f'}:\(; !:'5t)
tli l"t l;{'"f {} R, rut I N l.- lt A L. lM ;t l{ AC E l\{ f \T llrl-r I l" ?{ll I I{i an:
SERVIt ll: .'1Nl! Mll{Fll{,{1,5
113\,1{; Fi}I t..\ t- SIR\.I{'I llagistrafe .f r;stph 11 ill,iinson
{} r- f- t.. \ t}A Vr.' Scsiirin F
NTACISTRATE JL;L}{;I
JOTiT,PH WILKII{ST}H
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 2 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2
WTIEREFORE:
L. Taitz respectfuliy seeks a leave of court to join the action at hand as atr
interv'ener.
?. Tain seeks a declaratory reiief deeming Obama not eligible to issue any
executive orders, sign bills or perform any functions of the President or
Conrmander in Chief due to ineligibility per article 2, section 1 of the LS
Constitution and due to his fraudulent election based on uttering of forged and
invaiid identification records.
3. Taitz seeks a declaratory relief deeming Ken Salazar, secretary of the Interior,
not eligible to perfonn any functions as a Secretary of the Interior, as his
appointment as the Secretary of the interior was not iegitimate, as an appointment
of the ineligible Pre.sident and ttrat moratoriums and policies by Mr, Salazar were
null and void due to ineligibility for office and due to his illegal appointment by
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, ',vho is illegally usurping the position of &e LT.S.
president by virtue of fraud and uttering of forged identification records.
4. Taitz is seeking a declaralory relief that Presidential efigibility is not a political
Hornbeck v Salazar Reply to opposition to motion to interv"ene by Dr. Orly Taiu, ESQ
J
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 5 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2
que$tion, bui a legal question, to be decided by the district court as a federal law
question based violation of the Constitution, specificallrv Artiele 2 question i of the
U.S. Constitution.
5. Taitz is seeking an injunction seeking to stop persecutions of her as a dissident
and as a civil rights and constitutional attorney, who brought forward evidence of
Obama's liaudulent usurpation of the position cf the United States President and
Conrmander in Chief by use of fraud and uttering of forged identification receirds
and stop and reverse any retaliatory acticns and sanctions against her due to her
legal work in pursuit of ending usurpation of the U.S. presidency by Barack
Hussein Obama and ending the enorrnous clamage caused to the US industries and
economy at large as a result of this usurpation.
Respectfully S u hmitted,
05.11.2011
{- \
4-' z--"F-
/$ Orly Taitz, BSQ
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita PKlryY, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 9268S
phone 949-683-541 L fax 949-7 66-7 603
orly,taitz@gmail.com
Di
FllF9.cate of Service
I hereby certify that orr$3dl#Ef above brief is being filed with the clerk of
nCjry--
the court and and will be served electronically hy
<--4'--
CarlDavid Rosenblum c{osenblum@ione,swalker.com Y
Hornbeck v Salazar Reply to oppositicn to motion to intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
4
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 6 of 6 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-2
John F. Cooney
Venable, L["O
575 7th gL,NW
Washingeon, DC 2m04
Hombsck v Salazar Reply to opposition to motion to intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
5
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-3
Case 2:10-cv-01663-l\ILCF-JCW Document2S9-3 Filed A5111111 Page 1 of 21
TnnRsro$ffss.Ym
Ancmlu lunex Svsrnvrs, INc. 1YEB P.{CES
RESELLERSoF F{AGTN6 TECTS|oLOGIE.5 TO EXPAND IiilqS KilOWIEDGE
PFTODUCTiON DOCUMENT SCANhIEFS ivww€rEfiivdndex-com
P-O- Eox t10135
WIDE-MRMAT SGAT{NEFS wr,crAl-srhdesalecf ied(scann ersJom
CHECI{ SCANNERE B€LLEYUE WAsHHsrPtl lEff 5
WE&BA'SEO OOCUMET{T IMAGIIIIG StrTWAffE {,*25) 6il3-1 1 3t; F N€, {24o| 38/-7251
SCAiINING SOFTWAFIE Fo,r response to this leter diehold@ corncasi,net
tvty Credenfnli
for analyzing this documenL I owned a typesetting company for 11
I have a unique background
years so I knaw type and form design very well. I curreirtly own Archive lndex Systems since 1993,
which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging
software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other dosument imaging
Frograffs, such as Laser Fiche, Llberly and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging
systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging rystems and
el'erything about the design of such prograffis. This will be irrporrant in understanding what has
happened with Obama's Certificate of Live Birth.
*s a.tdttt
."-E --.*tii*:F T, ffi
. -r-
-^!*:r- rl;-14;i7jr{:*
rB ti iJlr
*'i#t#:.r#.s,4;;".
.,., ,.- ).
iU^-,_ ; -i*
Figure 1. Tiff image of the Obama's Certilicate ol Live Figure 2. Anolher Persons microlilrned Certificate of Live
Birth daied August 8, 1 961 , presBnted on TV 4/271201 1 Birth dated August 11,1961.
Whst I Dis{ouered dbout Obomdi Certili{ste of Llue Birth qnd whtr it il q Forgery'
What the Obama adminisfation released is a PDF image that tbey are tlying to pass off as a
Certificate Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the County Health Department,
The fann is a created forgery for the following reason$.
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 1 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2: 1 0-cv-01 663-MLCf -JCW Document 262 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 3
MINUTE ENTRY
WILKINSON, M. J.
MAY ll,20l1
APPEARANCES: Dr. Orly Taitz, movant; Assistant United States Attorney Peter
Mansfi eld, representing defendants ; C arl Rosenblum, repres enling
plaintiffs
ORDERED:
XXX : DENIED. Local Rules 7 .2 and78.l provide that motions will be decided solely
on briefs, without oral argument, unless a party requests oral argument no later than
"three days after receipt of opposition memorandum to a motion," and the court permits
it. No request for oral argument as required by the local rules was made in this case.
Nevertheless, the proposed intervenor, Dr. Orly Twtz, proceeding pro se and having
traveled to the court from California under the mistaken impression that a live hearing
would be conducted, was permitted to be heard orally. Opposing counsel were notified,
appeared and presented argument. Having considered the oral argument, together with
the written submissions in connection with the motion, including the government's
MJSTAR 0 : 17
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 2 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW Document 262 Filed 05111i11 Page 2 of 3
opposition, the record as a whole and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion is DENIED for the following reasons.
Movant concedes that she does ngt seek intervention ofright, but only permissive
intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Record Doc. No. 252-2 at p. 7,.[f 25. As to
permissive interventiono Rule 24(b) provides: "(1) On timel)' motion, the court malz
permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal
statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question
of law or fact. . . . (3) In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the
interventionwill unduly delay orprejudice the adjudication ofthe original parties' rights.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l), (3) (emphasis added).
Intervention may be permitted only "on timely application," Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(l) (emphasis added). When determining whether a motion to intervene is timely,
a court must consider: (1) how long the potential intervenor knew or reasonably should
have known of her stake in the case into which she seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice,
if any, the existing parties may suffer because the potential intervenor failed to intervene
when she knew or reasonably should have known of her stake in that case; (3) the
prejudice, if any, the potential intervenor may suffer if the court does not let her
intervene; and(4) any unusual circumstances that weigh in favor of or against a finding
of timeliness. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257,263-66 (5th Cir. 1977)); Effiohn Int'l
Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales. Inc. ,346 F .3d 552, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2003). ).
In addition, "[i]f there is no right to intervene under Rule 24(a), it is wholly
discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b), and even
though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are
otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention. . . . If the would-be
intervenor already is a party to other litigation in which the intervenor's rights can be
fully determined, . . . this may persuade the court to deny leave to intervene." 7C Charles
Alan Wright, ArthurR. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1913
at 476 and n.5 (citing Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285,
1289 (5th Cir. 1987)) and 487-89 (3d ed. 2007) (emphasis added).
Considering the foregoing factors in this instance, this court must exercise its
considerable discretion to deny intervention. I cannot conclude that the proposed
intervention shares any common issue of law or fact with the main case. While the
intervenor - like the original plaintiffs - asserts the invalidity of the moratorium action
taken by defendants, the legal and facfual basis of intervenor's claim - i.e., the
President's place of birth or citizenship - is entirely different from the legal and factual
assertions ofthe original claimants. Evaluating the timeliness factors also weighs heavily
againstpermittingthis intervention. The intervenor's actual stake inthe original litigation
is negligible when compared to the stake of the original plaintiffs. The prejudice to the
Case: 10-55084 05/16/2011 Page: 3 of 3 ID: 7752698 DktEntry: 48-4
Case 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW Document 262 Filed 05/11111 Page 3 of 3
existing parties in permitting the intervention would be extreme, given the wholly
extraneous nature ofthe proposed intervenor's legal and factual assertions to the claims
and defenses raised by the original parties. It appears from the proposed intervenor's
submissions that her claims have already been the subject of similar efforts by her in a
"pending civil suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Record Doc. No. 252-3 at p.36, u's 17 and 18, which she advised at oral
argument is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
where she recently made an appearance before that court. This is a strong indicator that
any prejudice to intervenor in denying the motion to intervene in this case would be
slight, since her claims have already been asserted in another lawsuit in her home venue
and any decision by that court may well have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in
this court. Finally, the o'unusual circumstances" of the timing of the assertion of
intervenor's claims and the President's recent public postings contesting those claims,
which the proposed intervenor and her experts assert in the reply papers are forgeries,
weigh against any exercise of this court's discretion to permit this intervention in a
different existing case.
For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. This intervention should
not be permitted.