Attorney wants to argue eligibility in Washington

A lawyer who has fought government attorneys in courthouses across the nation over the issue of President Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House now wants the dispute moved to the nation's capital, since that's where government lawyers have said there would be proper jurisdiction.

Orly Taitz is asking the California judge who earlier dismissed her clients' claims on jurisdictional issues, noting that the proper venue would be Washington, to simply move the case there.

"During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant U.S. attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia," Taitz argues in a new court filing before Judge David Carter.

"On October 29 this case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction only and was never heard on the merits, as this court noted in the above order that the proper jurisdiction is the District of Columbia court," she wrote.

TRENDING: Justice Thomas scuttles pro-abortion lawyers with single challenge

Taitz told WND today that there could be no opposition from the U.S. attorneys since they had argued for the jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., and the case then could be heard on its merits.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

RELATED: THE BIG LIST of eligibility 'proofers'

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual
citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. That's in addition to the work done by U.S. attorneys defending Obama's eligibility, as in this case.

While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate question unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

The case brought by Taitz is on behalf of a multitude of individuals in California, including some political candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

WND previously reported, too, when another lawyer representing several clients in the case filed a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation represents plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson and posed the question at the center of the case: "Whether the court may make a determination of whether the president has met the eligibility requirements for office, whether the 'natural born citizen' clause of the United States Constitution may be enforced by the courts, whether the 'natural born citizen' clause of the U.S. Constitution is a nonpolitical question, whether the court may remove from office a president that was not elected in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

Carter's dismissal centered on his opinion the plaintiffs lacked "standing" to bring the complaint, although he was worried about the full impact of his decision.

"The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate's qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election," he said.

The judge warned, "Defendants' argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.

"This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results," he said.

In her notice of her motion to transfer the case, Taitz asked that the case be moved to the desk of Judge Royce Lamberth in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

"The defendants in this case have already argued for the transfer during the October 5, 2009 hearing, stating that the proper venue is the District of Columbia there they cannot argue against this motion," she wrote, "The October 29 order stated that this was the opinion of the court.

"The only reasonable solution and conclusion would be the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court [in the District] of Columbia, for which the defendants have argued previously and to which the plaintiffs now agree as the only viable alternative," she wrote.

"Transfer of the case to the District of Columbia will resolve any challenges to the jurisdiction on the part of the defendants, and would give the plaintiffs an opportunity to start discovery immediately," she said.

WND also has reported that documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected a figure now approaching 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.

"In order to cure plaintiffs' perceived
injury, the court would need to wade deep into the waters of the president's official duties – in
fact, it would have to declare that the president could no longer perform any official duties. The
separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave," Carter wrote.

He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution's assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.

But Carter cited Kreep's arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.

"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural
born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not
already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the
presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of
him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the
removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment."