ORLY'S RETRACTION REQUEST AGAINST MICHAEL MEDVED

JK shared the following:

Orly is kicking ass again. Publish both letters on your blogs.

I have the audio tape of the show, but I have to cut it down to the clip. I'll forward it to you all when I am done. Pass this around. Let's make it go viral. If Orly filed a CIVIL suit against Medved for slander, maybe the BC documents could finally be obtained. Maybe Obama could be deposed. We have to start thinking out of the box.

805-987-0400
Salem Communications
4880 Santa Rosa Road
Camarillo, Ca 93012
Joe Davis, President of Radio Division joeD@salem.cc
Chris Henderson, Vice President and General Counsel chrisH@salem.cc

Dear Mr. Davis and Mr. Henderson,

On Monday, January 19th, during Michael Medved's Radio Show, Mr. Medved made some very disparaging and slanderous remarks concerning my character, mental state and my motives for pursuing legal actions that question Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. Mr. Medved also made "false" statements concerning the merits of the legal actions that I have filed and insinuated that my primary motive for pursuing these matters is to receive monetary donations from an unsuspecting and misinformed public.

I find that Mr. Medved's willful ignorance on the issues surrounding Mr. Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" status, and his unwillingness to familiarize himself with the merits of the numerous lawsuits that have been filed by concerned citizens, not conspiracy theorists, across this great County, is a great disservice to your listeners and the American public as a whole.

Under California law, statements, like the ones that Mr. Medved spewed on your radio broadcasts are considered defamatory. In a court of law, I would not need to show special damages (e.g., damages to property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from your defamation statements) because the statements are defamation per se. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

To remedy these slanderous and defamatory statements, California has a retraction statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 48a, that applies to the "publication of libel in a newspaper" or "slander by radio broadcast."

Under the California retraction statute, I have a right to serve you with a written request for retraction against the slanderous and defamatory statements that Mr. Medved has made about me, my character, statements he has made about my mental health and my motives for pursuing legal actions on behalf of my clients concerning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. Additionally, I have the right to request that Mr. Medved and your company and your affiliate stations that broadcast Mr. Medved's Show issue a retraction based on the misleading and misinformed derogatory comments that Mr. Medved made concerning the merits of the legal cases that I have filed involving matters relating to the Nov 4, 2008 Presidential election.

Therefore, I am demanding that you instruct Mr. Medved to invite me onto his radio show and allow me to defend myself against the slanderous and defamatory statements that he has made about me to your listeners. I am hopeful that this request will allow me to discuss these false statements and correct the misinformation that Mr. Medved has made public to your radio station listeners. I am requesting ample opportunity to discuss the legal merits of the cases I am litigating on the airwaves so your listeners can be fully informed on the issues concerning Mr. Obama's lack of eligibility to serve as POTUS.

If you do not allow me ample opportunity on Mr. Medved's show or equal time on your radio stations to personally present facts that directly contradict Mr. Medved's slanderous and defamatory statements, I demand that you issue an immediate oral retraction on your radio stations, and that this retraction include a fair and accurate historical outline of my background, my character, my mental health status and my motives for filing legal actions on behalf of my clients. I also request that this oral retraction present a fair and unbiased presentation of the legal merits of my case, and the merits of similar lawsuits that Mr. Medved lumped together with mine.

In addition, I demand that Mr. Medved and your affiliate stations issue a written retraction to be placed on Mr. Medved's personal/business web site, on the TownHall.com web site, on ALL your affiliate stations web sites in which you broadcast Mr. Medved's show, and to make certain that these written retractions specifically address the issues that I outlined above.

I ask that each retraction be placed in a prominent position on your corporate web site and all of your affiliate station web sites and that "RETRACTION-Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq." be placed in the heading of the section where the retraction appears. I also request that you publish this letter along with Mr. Medved's and your company's written retraction.

Please respond to this written retraction request by email, no later than February 3, 2009 and send a hard copy of your response and written retraction to me at my Mission Viejo address via Certified Mail/Signature Required no later than February 10, 2009.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
Office: 949-586-8110
Cell: 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Copy of Letter sent to TownHall.com and Michael Medved

TownHall.Com
1901 N. Moore Street, Suite 701
Arlington, VA 22209

To: Michael Medved
RE: Michael Medved Show
Email: michael@michaelmedved.com
Online Email Form: http://www.michaelmedved.com/askmike

Date: January 23, 2009

Dear Mr. Medved,

On Monday, January 19th, during your Radio Show, you had made some very disparaging and slanderous remarks concerning my character, mental state and my motives for pursuing legal actions that question Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. You had also made "false" statements concerning the merits of the legal actions that I have filed and insinuated that my primary motive for pursuing these matters is to receive monetary donations from an unsuspecting and misinformed public.

I find that your willful ignorance on the issues surrounding Mr. Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" status, and your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the merits of the numerous lawsuits that have been filed by concerned citizens, not conspiracy theorists, across this great County, is a great disservice to your listeners and the American public as a whole.

Under California law, statements, like the one's you spewed on your radio broadcast are considered defamatory. In a court of law, I would not need to show special damages (e.g., damages to property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from your defamation statements) because the statements are defamation per se. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

To remedy these slanderous and defamatory statements, California has a retraction statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 48a, that applies to the "publication of libel in a newspaper" or "slander by radio broadcast."

Under the California retraction statute, I have a right to serve you with a written request for retraction against the slanderous and defamatory statements that you made about me, my character, statements you made about my mental health and my motives for pursuing legal actions on behalf of my clients concerning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. Additionally, I have the right to request that you issue a retraction based on the misleading and misinformed derogatory comments that you made concerning the merits of the legal cases that I have filed involving matters relating to the Nov 4, 2008 Presidential election.

Therefore, I am demanding that you invite me on your radio show and allow me to defend myself against the slanderous and defamatory statements that you made about me so we can further discuss these false statements and the misinformation you made public regarding the legal merits of the cases I am litigating. If you do not allow me ample opportunity on your show to personally present facts that directly contradict your slanderous and defamatory statements, I demand that you issue an immediate oral retraction on your radio show, which includes a fair and accurate historical outline of my background, my character, my mental health status and my motives for filing legal actions on behalf of my clients. I also request that this oral retraction present a fair and unbiased presentation of the legal merits of my case, and the merits of similar lawsuits that you lumped together with mine.

In addition, I demand that you issue a written retraction on your personal/business web site and on the TownHall.com web site, that specifically addresses the issues outlined above. I ask that this retraction is placed in a prominent position on the site and that "RETRACTION-Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq." be placed in the heading of the section where the retraction appears. I also request that you publish this letter along with your written retraction.

Please respond to this written retraction request by email, no later than February 3, 2009 and send a hard copy of your response and written retraction to me at my Mission Viejo address via Certified Mail/Signature Required no later than February 10, 2009.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

Office: 949-586-8110
Cell: 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

New Issue of GLOBE Magazine Highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court Case

For Immediate Release: - 01/03/2009

New Issue of GLOBE Magazine Highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court Case
and you can Vote if “natural born” or not.



(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/03/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, [is in the U.S. Supreme Court with two (2) Conferences scheduled on 1/09/09 & 1/16/09] announced today that the new issue of GLOBE Magazine [1/12/09 issue] highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court case and is major story on the front of the magazine and is the centerfold story. There is a place for everyone to vote as to status of Obama, “natural born” or not.

Berg stated, “This is the 2nd time GLOBE Magazine has highlighted the question of Obama’s lack of ‘qualifications’ to be President. More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the ‘qualifications’ and that this is the biggest ‘Hoax’ perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC and senior campaign staff of Obama’s campaign should be brought into the criminal justice system and indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.”

The story is the center spread. There's also a poll where you can Cast Your Vote: Truth or Vicious Smear? Was Barack Obama actually born in Kenya and therefore not legally eligible to serve as President? Or are the mounting claims against him just part of a vicious smear campaign to discredit him? Here's a chance for you to have your say!

If you're convinced Obama is a natural born citizen, e-mail us at CitizenObama@globefl.com. If you're convinced he is NOT, e-mail us at NoCitizenObama@globefl.com. They'll publish the results in a future issue.
http://www.globemagazine.com

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to
obamacrimes.com

Click here for the GlobeMagazine article.

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 - 570

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further

www.obamacrimes.com: "For Immediate Release: - 12/30/08

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel."

Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.

The suit is in the nature of an Interpleader that shifts the burden of proof to the Defendants, Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden to show that they are “qualified” for office.

Berg stated, “I am determined, on behalf of the 320 million citizens in the United States, to see that “our U.S. Constitution” is followed. Specifically, in the case of Soetoro a/k/a Obama, does he meet the constitutional qualifications for President ? I do not believe so based upon: 1) Obama was born in Kenya and because his mother was not nineteen [19], he was only “naturalized” and therefore, not qualified to be President; 2) Obama was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia at the approximate age of six [6] and attended school as “Barry Soetoro,” [his step-father is Lolo Soetoro] for four [4] years – Indonesia did not have dual citizenship and to attend school, he had to be adopted or acknowledged and he became a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; 3) when he returned to Hawaii at age ten [10], there is a question if he returned through U.S. Immigration – (a) if he did, Barry Soetoro would have been given a “Certification of Citizenship” that would have indicated he was a “naturalized” U.S. citizen since he was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; or (b) if he did not go through immigration, which I believe, then Soetoro a/k/a Obama is an illegal alien and therefore, not constitutionally qualified to be President and his three [3] years as an U.S. Senator were a fraud.”

Berg continued, “I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two [2] Conferences to look into the merits of our allegations. I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified ‘natural-born’ citizen and therefore, is ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

Obama, knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia; is an attorney, Harvard Law head of the Law Review and graduate who taught Constitutional law; knows the Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world.”

Berg concluded, “I will continue my efforts until Obama either proves he is qualified or does the right thing and states that he is proud that he, an African American, received more votes than anyone else in the Presidential election on November 4, 2008, but because of things in his past, he must withdraw his name.”

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports

As reported by DecaLogosIntl.org:

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

WorldNetDaily has also picked up on this story (in part, below):

In Washington state’s Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

“These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, ‘You handle the elections, it’s your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],’” Stephen Pidgeon told WND, “and the secretaries of state have said, ‘No, it’s not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.’ But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

“Here, we have standing by means of statute,” Pidgeon continued. “This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office.”

Further, Pidgeon explained, “In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it’s very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

“He doesn’t think he does; we think he does. That’s really the issue before the court,” Pidgeon said.

REPLY - “The Secretary Of State Is Confused”

December 30, 2008

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama.

The Secretary of State’s claim that “Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born on August 4, 1961” is patently false. Nothing in its original form has been produced publicly. The document provided by Obama says on the bottom border that “any alteration invalidates this certificate.” The copy is altered, its CERTIFICATE NUMBER having been blotted out with a dark, black line. The only document Sen. Obama has yet to produce to demonstrate his native birth in the United States is wholly deficient to do so.

The Secretary has a duty to determine eligibility. Article VI of the United States Constitution requires all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 the Washington State Constitution makes the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land. The Secretary of State is “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.” RCW 29A.04.230, and he is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities with federal law. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that “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.”

Our position is not moot. Amendment 20, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, states that “if a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [bold added], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

The Secretary is without any evidence upon which he can reasonably rely to shirk his constitutional duty. The Secretary of State has relied upon four pieces of “evidence” he believes to be sufficient to vitiate his constitutional duty to establish the eligibility of Senator Obama: 1) the Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee; 2) the digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth posted by FactCheck.org; 3) FacCheck.org’s certification that that the Certification was genuine; and 4) the statement by State of Hawaii, Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino.

The Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee says nothing more than that Senator Obama was “duly nominated.” There is no certification by the DNC that the candidate was eligible or constitutionally qualified to hold office.

FactCheck.org’s certification is meaningless, because the document they “certify” as genuine is deficient on its face as a matter of law. The digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth does not establish that Senator Obama was born in the United States, because of Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii.

Finally, the statement by Dr. Fukino is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with policies and procedures.” She does not tell us that the document they have is a Hawaiian birth certificate; only that there is a birth certificate on file in Hawaii.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
Cause No, 8-2-473-8

Read more.