Obama meeting with ACORN leaders as an Illinois Senate candidate

An attorney who has been involved in several cases alleging Barack Obama isn’t qualified to be president because he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution now is asking a California judge to investigate possible fraud against the court.

Orly Taitz, who has, among other cases, one pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a member of the military wondering whether orders from Obama as commander-in-chief are valid, said the possibility of fraud is one of several concerns in the case.

“There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social Security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution,” she wrote in her latest arguments that also request the case be moved to Washington, D.C.

She noted the respondent, Obama, “has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another.”

She also asked that the U.S. attorney’s office, which has been representing Obama’s interests in the case, be barred from participating “due to the obvious inherent conflict of interest.”

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Taitz told WND a hearing is scheduled Jan. 25, and the outcome is up to Judge David Carter. The judge earlier dismissed the case in a ruling that noted the appropriate venue would be the District of Columbia, where Obama’s political office is based.

WND reported earlier when she argued to Carter that since the defendant’s lawyers have admitted D.C. would be the proper jurisdiction, the case should be moved.

In her original request, she wrote, “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. … 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.”

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.

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.

Taitz told WND she’s submitted to the court testimony from private investigators and others regarding allegations Obama has used multiple Social Security numbers.

“He [the judge] has the inherent power to schedule an evidentiary hearing if there is a suspicion fraud was perpetrated on the court,” she said.

According to her online posting of the newest request, she also notes the case “has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington, D.C..”

The government’s lawyers had argued against that request. But she has responded.

“On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: ‘[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district,'” she argued.

“The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case,” she wrote.

Her request, then, is to have the court move the case “directly to the Chief Judge of the U.S. District of Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case.”

“This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits,” she wrote.

Taitz previously requested of both Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor and successor Channing Phillips that they provide the necessary check on the president, without response.

The issues, she summarized, remain simple. The state of Hawaii, she said, “allows registration of births out of state” and has refused to release any original records for Obama, nor has Obama authorized any release.

“Does the restrictive qualification for president of ‘natural born citizen’ over ‘citizen’ include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the commander in chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?” she asked.

“Does a presidential candidate or president elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide state or federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective state or federal statutory standards?”

“To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the people’s rights?” her filing asks.

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.

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 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.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.