DR.

ORLY TAITZ, ESQ 29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE100 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 PHONE 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603 ORLY.TAITZ@GMAIL.COM CA BAR LIC 223433 IN PROPRIA PERSONA SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ; NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVES LARRY RAPPAPORT , HARRY ACCORNERO, LUCIEN VITA , CAROL VITA, MOE VILLENUEVA, SUSAN DELEMUS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THOMAS MAC LERAN, CODY JUDY et al PLAINTIFFS , ) CASE NO.: ) Rule 10

) PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE ) RULING BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ) RULE 7- DISCRETIONARY REVIEW VS. ) Rule 11 BRAD COOK, MARTHA VAN OOT, ) JAMISON FRENCH, MARGARET ANN CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION MORAN, JANE CLEMONS- MEMBERS ) OF THE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION; MOTION FOR REHEARING BILL GARDNER SECRETARY OF ) STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ) DEFENDANTS Petitioners hereby request this Honorable Court to reconsider its decision not to hear the Appeal filed in the above-captioned case. Petitioners make this request based on Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire: Rule 22 authorizes Petitioners to file the instant motion for reconsideration or rehearing. For the Court’s convenience, the rule is stated here in its entirety: RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rule 22. (1) A motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be entered upon the filing with the clerk of the supreme court of the original and 7 copies of the motion and a certificate by counsel that a copy of the motion and notice of the filing have been mailed first class or delivered to opposing counsel and to the clerk of the court or agency from which the appeal or transfer was taken, and (in the case of an appeal from an administrative agency) to the attorney general. (2) Any motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be filed within 10 days from the date of the opinion or dismissal or summary decision in matters in which an opinion is not issued. The motion shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that in the professional judgment of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present, but the motion shall not exceed 10 pages. Oral argument in support of the motion shall not be permitted, except at the invitation of the court. (3) No answer to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be required unless requested by the court, but any answer or objection must be filed within 10 days from the date the motion was filed. (3-A) If an answer/objection to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is filed, no reply to the answer/objection may be filed without permission of the court received in advance. A motion for permission to file a reply must be filed within 10 days from the date the answer/objection has been filed in the clerk’s office; provided, however, that the court may act upon a motion for rehearing or reconsideration prior to the expiration of said ten-day period. Any reply to an answer/objection filed without prior permission of the court shall not be considered by the court. (4) If a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is granted, the court may make a final disposition of the case without reargument or may restore it to the calendar for reargument or resubmission or make such other orders as are deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) Consecutive motions for rehearing or reconsideration shall not be considered or acted upon by the court. MOTION Petitioners herein are seeking a review by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire of the decision reached by the Ballot Law commission. Petitioners are seeking such review under Rule 7 (Discretionary Review) and under Rule 10 (Review by Petition of the Decision by the Agency), which was unlawful and unreasonable as well as under Rule 11. Every issue specifically raised herein has been presented to the administrative agency and has been properly preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate, by a properly filed pleading.

The Court denied to consider Petitioner’s Appeal without opinion on December 27, 2011. Decision by the court was received by the petitioners on December 29, 2011. Petitioners ask for reconsideration on the basis that Rule 11 and the prior conduct of the Ballot Law Commission establishes a clear basis for this Honorable Court’s assumption of Original Jurisdiction AND notes for the Court that the Office of State Administrative Hearings in Georgia yesterday allowed a similar challenge to proceed. (Decision Attached as Exhibit 1, hereto.) While this of course has no binding effect on this Honorable Court, it does show that this inquiry has been allowed to proceed by another State, and is not automatically dismissed out of hand by every agency and court that reviews this good faith eligibility challenge. There should be uniformity in decision for presidential eligibility around the country. Petitioners, a number of whom are duly elected state representatives of New Hampshire, presented this court with undeniable evidence, showing that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the U.S. Presidency due to his foreign citizenship and allegiance to foreign nations and due to his lack of any valid primary identification papers to show his natural born U.S. citizen status. Connecticut Social Security number, that he is using, was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS and his alleged copy of a long form birth certificate was proven to be a forgery according multiple experts. Trial on the merits of the case of his eligibility is scheduled for January 26, 2011 in the state of GA. Exhibit 1. If the Adminstrative Court of GA finds Obama not to be eligible, there will be an impermissible confusion and schism between the states. As such, it would be prudent, for this court to stay count of ballots for Obama in the state of New Hampshire, until his eligibility is heard on the merits. This would provide consistent decisions around the nations. Petitioners are requesting that this court reconsider its prior decision or in the alternative consider previously submitted Motion for Stay. The court is requested to stay issuance of the final mandate pending resolution on the merits in the sister state of GA. 1. Under Rule 11, this Court Should Assume Original Jurisdiction of this Matter Because the Actions of the Agency Are Outside of Normal Conduct of the Agency. Petitioner argues that, according to Rule 11 of the Supreme Court, the Court can assume original jurisdiction when the actions of the agency are outside of what represents normal conduct of the agency. Regarding Petitions for original jurisdiction, Rule 11 states: “…Petitions requesting this court to exercise its original jurisdiction shall be granted only when there are special and important reasons to do so….when a trial court or administrative agency has decided a question of substance not therefore determined by this court; or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this court; or has so far departed from the accepted or usual course of judicial or administrative agency proceedings as to call for an exercise of this court’s power of supervision.”

In a number of prior cases cited in the original Appeal, Petitioners pointed out that the Ballot Law commission and the Secretary of State removed individuals from the ballot for not being qualified, not being eligible. There is more than one example of individuals being removed who are not natural born citizens. These cases are as follows: In Obama’s case members of the commission defrauded the petitioners and the public by claiming that they have jurisdiction “only to check if Obama filled out the form correctly and paid the $1,000 fee. (Transcript of the Ballot Law Commision hearing, ballot challenge by Taitz). This assertion by the Ballot Law Commission is thus clearly a departure from their prior conduct, from the “accepted or usual course” of their handling of eligibility challenges that it is entirely fair for the challengers to ask why, and for this Court to resolve that important question. BASED ON THE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION’S PRIOR ACTIONS REMOVING CANDIDATES FOR FAR LESS SUBSTANTIVE REASONS, AFTER MAKING A SUBSTANTIVE INQUIRY, THE COMMISSION’S FAILURE TO SUBJECT OBAMA TO SIMILAR SCRUTINY MOST CERTAINLY MUST BE AN ACTION “the accepted or usual course of judicial or administrative agency proceedings as to call for an exercise of this court’s power of supervision.” Thus, Petitioners beseech this Court, in the interests of justice and based on Rule 11 and 22, to please reconsider whether the agency in question departed from the accepted or usual course of their proceedings to give special favor to the President, and find that original jurisdiction exists “as to call for an exercise of this court’s “power of supervision.” 2. Between this Court’s Earlier Order and this Motion, an Administrative Law Judge in Georgia Has Determined that Barack Obama’s Eligibility Challenge Should Proceed. Moreover, on January 3, 2012, Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Office of Administrative Hearings in the State of Georgia DENIED Barack Obama’s Motion to Dismiss an eligibility challenge on the basis that under Georgia law, both the Secretary of State and electors have the right to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The full text of the ruling on the motion to dismiss is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This well-known source of concern about Obama’s eligibility has become something of a legal and political “hot potato” in many of the jurisdictions where it has been asserted and the tendency has been for courts and agencies to dispose of it at its inception. Petitioners inform this Honorable Court of the decision in Georgia to illustrate that such is not always, nor should it be, the case. This important matter is proceeding in the State of Georgia as it should in the State of New Hampshire. NEW EVIDENCE SURFACED, SHOWING SECRETARY OF STATE GARDNER FLAGRANTLY VIOLATING SANCTITY OF ELECTIONS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN REGARDS TO ELECTIONS RESULTS

Attached transcript and link to a video tape posted on you-tube (Exhibit 2) shows Secretary of State of New Hampshire caught on tape red handed, not placing boxes with ballots in vault for secure keeping, but simply leaving them in a room, which was not secure, providing no answers to reporters. Later the room in question was found to be unlocked, boxes open. Citizens are left wandering, what is in these boxes, are those boxes with pre-filled ballots in rigged, predetermined elections? This recent revelation shows a pattern of either fraud or criminal negligence, complete abandon of the most basic rules of safeguarding lawful elections by the Secretary of State. This, coupled with malice, shown by Secretary of State Gardner and ballot law commission, in placing on the ballot Obama, in spite of total lack of qualifications, shows a pattern of wide ranged fraud by the top elections officials of the state of New Hampshire. It is imperative for the Supreme Court of New Hampshire not to be complicit in this fraud. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, this Honorable Court should reconsider its decision not to hear this Appeal under its original jurisdiction arising out of Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire. In the alternative, this court should stay issuance of final judgment, of final mandate pending resolution of Obama’s eligibility by currently underway in the Administrative Court of the state of Georgia. Respectfully Submitted, January 4, 2012 I, Orly Taitz, certify, that a copy of above petition was forwarded to the defendants via email to Deputy Secretary of State at David.Scanlan@sos.nh.gov Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful