Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Indiana warns Obama of eligibility 'default'
Election commission set to hear complaint
Bob Unruh @ WND

A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.

The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.

“The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2,” the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. “A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.”

A similar hearing was held last month in Georgia, and Obama and his attorney refused to participate. Instead of accepting the judge’s offer of a default judgment then, which probably would have recommended to the secretary of state that Obama’s name not be on the 2012 election ballot in the state, attorneys for several citizens raising various issues asked to present evidence regarding Obama’s ineligibility.

Get Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

The judge, Michael Malihi, allowed that in several cases, but then in one sweeping opinion that didn’t even respond to some of the legal motions pending, he dismissed the testimony and ruled without evidence from Obama that he should be on the 2012 state election ballot.

The move is part of an effort on the part of citizens across the country to use each state’s election procedures to challenge Obama’s name on state ballots. It is the states that run elections, not the federal government, and the presidential race results are just a compilation of the elections run by all the states.

There are two mainstream arguments in the dispute: that he either was not born in the state of Hawaii as he has claimed, which could make him ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements that a president be a “natural born citizen,” or that he doesn’t qualify for that status since he’s written that his father never was a U.S. citizen.

Many analysts believe the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents. A Supreme Court opinion from 1875 seems to support that argument.

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office on the grounds he’s not eligible, has told WND, “Indiana is a very important state, as recently they threw out of office … their Secretary of State Charlie White for not updating his voter registration card.”

“It is important to shove in front of the elections board … all the evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate. I want to see how they will justify keeping … Barack Obama on the ballot after they removed the secretary of state for something minor,” she said.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/indiana-warns-obama-of-eligibility-default

NOTICE OF HEARING BELOW AND HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82393917/Swihart-v-Obama-Notice-of-Hearing-and-Default-Warning-Indiana-Election-Commission-2-17-2012

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Swihart v Obama - Notice of Hearing and Default Warning - Indiana Election Commission 2/17/2012

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC


  1. Indiana is the stae where Ankeny v. The Governor if Indiana is precedent. This is DOA.

  2. The question is, since Ankeny vs Daniels is a Indiana case, will it fit in this scenario if Obama doesn't show up?

  3. Orly will fuck this up what number will this be for failures? Are there any other attorneys who will also be at the court hearing?

  4. Ive got one other question maybe we should dig into ORLY's background she has a 4 million dollar house but yet she loses cases so how is she able to keep paying all these fines and legal fees and airfare?

  5. Orly really needs to find a partner and have him/her file the lawsuits and present the evidence. She's good at gathering evidence, but she really is a horrible attorney. How many times has she had crap thrown out because she didn't follow specific instructions?

  6. @Dust: "Are there any other attorneys who will also be at the court hearing?"

    As always, Fogbow will have observers in the room. We haven't missed an Orly court appearance since April 2009.

  7. @DUST

    Orly is a dentist in Orange County California. That is how she pays for her house.

  8. “A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.”

    Notice there are two big weasel words in the "warning" that issued to Obama and the plantiff. They both leave a loophole that is large enough to drive a Mack truck through.

    The first weasel word is MAY, as in MAY be held in default. This means they also may NOT be held in default.

    The second weasel word is OR, as is OR the proceeding could be dismissed.

    Imagine this seanario, Obama fails to appear but instead of finding Obama in default the Judge simply dismisses the case because Obama failed to participate in it.

    If you don't think this could happen just think about what already happend in GA. Did anyone think that could happen?


  9. A Real Lawyer - Unlike Taft Mail Order GradsFebruary 22, 2012 at 4:10 AM

    Orly is not admitted to practice in Indiana. She needs a local attorney to sponsor her application for pro hac vice. Will never happen.

    This challenge is a loser. Ankeny v. Daniels is the law in Indiana.

  10. @Anonymous

    "Did anyone think that could happen?"

    There is more. In Indiana like in Georgia, the hearing will be decided on the facts. Even in a default. So after the default is declared, the hearing proceeds and the board will take Ankeny into account.

  11. If Orly is involved, no matter what she does is bound to fail. She is a horrible lawyer. I've seen the papers she filed and is no different than a TMZ article. She doesn't know what the word "evidence" means. She regards an email sent by a stranger as evidence. I'm a "birther" don't get me wrong but we really need a different lawyer for this cause. She could have the most convincing, leg breaking evidence in the world and still not win a case. On top of that the judges will laugh at her like Malihi in court. Judges are not corrupt; it's just HER. She is crazy. She acts too crazy and spits cases out without much research or thinking. I admire her tenacity though. She just need to use her damn brain! ALL her cases are full of holes.

  12. it is long overdue for each state to have resident lawyers/attorneys represent these cases. Having Orly and others waltz in makes it a "conservative" attack and dealt with accordingly. States need to buck up and quit being used by Orly. Doubt anyone is even listening to her anymore. (Not that she is the problem)

  13. No, she doesn't make money as a dentist. Check Fogbow, we found six different dental malpractice cases against her. That's why she went to online law school.

    The money in that family comes from Yosi Taitz, her husband, who owns a software company worth in excess of $10 million.

  14. This challenge is a loser just as those before it have been losers and the stack of decisions against ineligibility will get higher. The only way for this to change is for someone to do what no one can do: devise a means to defeat two -- not one, but two -- self-proving documents issued by the State of Hawaii. Good luck with that.

  15. Anyone taking bets on what Indiana will get? Maybe their own space shuttle program? Oh, wait… I got it: A waiver from the EPA so they can manufacture anything they want without restrictions!
    At least now we know why the Republicans keep on protecting this POS. He is a Cash Cow! They have been blackmailing him for years. They just don’t want the bribes to dry up.

  16. This proceeding is not before a judge. It is before a four member election commission, similar to the New Hampshire ballot law commission, except this time there are no badly behaved legislators.

  17. @Foggy of the Fogbow

    OK, so Orly is a dentist who is also married to a rich husband.

    So what?


    Most people who live in Orange County CA have some money.

    (watch any reality tv lately Rich Housewives of Orange County?)

    So what was your point about her 4 million dollars house?

    Oh that's right, you don't have a point. Do you?

    As for the malpractice lawsuits, Orly has deep pockets and lots of enemies.

    I am quite sure the Obots are lining up to try and sue her.

    Afterall, they don't know how to make an honest living now do they?

  18. To Anonymous 10:20
    We don't know that any of the "documents" posted online were ACTUALLY issued by Hawaii

  19. Anony 8:21 and 8:38 am,

    Apparently you are unaware that almost no other attorneys will bring this case, never mind for free.

    So how many lawyers have you called in your states?

    I called 10.

  20. Please watch the video. It is clear where Obama's loyalty is:


  21. @Anonymous

    Indiana is the state where Ankeny v. The Governor if Indiana is precedent. This is DOA.

    Ankeny vs. Indiana is not precedent on declaring Obama NBC. Further, it did NOT make any determination concerning the validity of O's BC. The question before the court was whether the previous authority had erred in dismissing the case without a hearing. They found that they did NOT err because the case was based on an 18th century treatise as opposed to US law. In other words, because the plaintiff relied on Vatell and not SCOTUS precedent and US laws, there was nothing to decide.

    The only question before the court was whether there was an legal argument to be decided within the plaintiff's case. As such, the holding is limited to the answer to that question. So any statements they made about Obama being NBC is merely dicta and certainly doesn't invalidate any standing SCOTUS decisions.

  22. @Anonymous

    This is what they said about Minor v. Happersett,

    "In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:'

    'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.

  23. @Anonymous

    'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

    1. The Ankeny court is wrong. The doubt expressed was whether one born of alien parents is a 14th Amendment citizen, not whether they were natural born. There was no doubt that they were NOT.

    2. That statement is merely dicta as the holding of the court simply was that the previous authority did not err to dismiss the case because it relied on Vatell, which is not law in the US.

  24. Anonymous @ February 22, 2012 5:38 PM

    You are mistaken.

    The Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a citizen.

    "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

    "As to this class there have been doubts... For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

    "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

    Virginia Minor was born in country of citizen parents, which is why it was not necessary to solve the doubts regarding citizenship of children born in country without reference to the citizenship of the parents.

    The court recognized the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship. Minor was natural born.

    The Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a citizen, and explicitedly differentiated from natural born citizenship any potential citizenship such a person may have. Their was no need to resolve doubts regarding such potential citizenship since Minor was a natural born citizen.

  25. I believe Orly is a Communist Operative working for Obama. Her goal is to mess up all cases against Obama. So far she is the perfect lawyer supporting Obama. She will disappear after Obama is done with America.

    Why do Americans use a foreigner Orly to defend that America needs NBC leadership. That is dumb. If Americans want a NBC President then use only American NBC and stop using Russian NBC Orly.

    Wake up everyone. Time is getting late. Every world out of Orly is a Bold Faced Lie.

    Just my opinion. I have no proof except her actions. She is the perfect shill. A Dumb Blond. Why do you think all the MSM will talk only to Orly? Because they are directed to talk to the idiot who really supports Obama through her destruction of our evidence.

    What a mess.

  26. @A Real Lawyer - Unlike Taft Mail Order Grads

    Ordinarily,one does not need an attorney to challenge a candidates eligibility at an administrative hearing.

    Most people represent themselves at administrative hearings. However for a variety of reasons some people choose to hire an attorney.

    The primary reason that people are hiring attorneys to represent them in these ballot challenges are twofold.

    One, because Obama has unlimited legal resources to dispute these challenges.

    Two, the system is so corrupt that they are trying every trick in the book to try to dismiss these ballot challenges without the giving the plaintiffs a fair hearing.

  27. orly wants $700 for fare and expenses.

    The ankeny v indiana appeal was denied.

    this state is chasing good money after bad.

    MITCH DANIELS, GOVERNOR, is smarter than this.

    He should be supporting the teapartiers and he isn't. that speaks volumes.

  28. Orly lost again to an empty table. And in the process, she was repeatedly smacked down by the commission chair (head of the state's Romney campaign, by the way), and was repeatedly disrespectful to the commission members.

    What an absolute embarrassment she is to the movement. She should not get one more dime from Constitutionalists. She is a complete, utter failure.

  29. So what happened? Anyone want to reflect on todays activities or is this all "fluff"?

  30. Orly just got slammed by the Indiana Election Commission in the Indiana Ballot Challenge. The commission told her before she presented her evidence that they knew what a NBC was and cited Ankeny v Daniels which says you can be born on U.S. soil despite who the parents are. They also told her that his Connecticut SS number was irrelevant. They told her since she was under oath that she would go to jail if she fibbed to them. Their exact words were:

    "If you say stuff under oath and fib you can go to jail, be aware"

    They won't accept any of Orly's evidence. They denied her challenge 4-0. It's over.

    Here is the audio of the challenge:

  31. Indiana election board vote 4-0 to keep President Obama on ballot.

    Orly stuff called hearsay and irrevlevant.

  32. This was today right? Any news?

  33. Annnnnnnnd Taitz wins again! Obama stays on the ballot, and "birthers" once again look like lunatics.

    Obama should slip a bonus into her paycheck for this performance. She earned it.

  34. Looks like another defeat...the constitutional republic is dead. The dictatorship lives on, and we are it's slaves.

    It's time to root, hog, or die, folks.

  35. Gee, sure is quiet in Birtherville after today's EPIC smackdown of the challenge to Obama. *crickets*

  36. Her is an award winning video on what Obama is doing to this great nation
    Please share with your friends if you enjoy

  37. Obama is the biggest joke for a human being in the white house. We don't have any one with balls enough to take the stand of the constitution and take his name off the ballot. What a bunch of sorry ass holes.


    Must be every elected official in the USA got to their throne by FRAUD.

    There is no other conclusion that these goons are so blind they cannot see, do deaf they cannot hear.

    One of the nitwits said the Georgia court evidence was not certified, yet never considered or even thought twice, that Obama's posted forgery was not certified.

    What applies to Plaintiff's evidence does not apply to defendant.

    What is up is down and inside out, just what VAN JONES, THE GREEN CZAR WANTS TO HAPPEN.



  39. For the second time in recent history Obama failed to appear for an Administrative hearing.

    Instead of entering a default judgment against Obama and holding him in contempt of court the Administrative Officers in Indiana found in favor of an absent defendant and threw the case out dismissing all the evidence and testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.

    This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

    Learn More Here


    Here Is An Interesting Quote From Represent Yourself In Court: How To Prepare & Try A Winning Case, Written By Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Bergman. Publisher NOLO 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Page 16.

    “ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge’s) do not normally have to follow the rules of evidence that govern court-room trials. For example you CAN (emphasis added ) offer hearsay evidence.”

    Also from the Indiana Code…(I don’t know it this is applicable to ballot challenges but it’s worth researching)

    IC 31-33-19-3
    Hearsay evidence
    31-33-19-3 Sec. 3. During an administrative hearing under section 1 of this chapter, the administrative hearing officer shall consider hearsay evidence to be competent evidence and may not exclude hearsay based on the technical rules of evidence. However, a determination may not be based solely on evidence that is hearsay.
    As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.


“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.