I find it amazing that a federal judge did not dismiss an Orly Taitz case without a hearing. That means that the judge did not see Dr. Taitz's case as frivolous or without merit on its face.

As with the case in 2009 before Judge Carter, this is still a pre-trial hearing so "no witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted" to prove identity and selective service fraud.

If Orly gets past this hearing then the judge will schedule a hearing on Orly's "Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants."

In Orly's "Motion To Stike The Motion To Dismiss" that resulted in the judge ordering the hearing, Orly argues:

"Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss this case supposedly on behalf of the U.S. Congress without any knowledge and consent of the U.S. Congress, keeping the members of the U.S. Congress in the dark. Later, if and when the U.S. Congress decides to impeach Obama due to his illegitimacy to the U.S. Presidency, due to fraud committed by Obama and due to his use of forged and stolen IDs, Obama will use this action and current motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the U.S. Congress and without knowledge of the U.S. Congress, in order to evade future impeachment, possibly claiming double jeopardy, Res Judicata or collateral estoppel. For this reason alone current motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice has to be stricken and the U.S. Congress has to be given time to file a response by the counsel chosen by the U.S. Congress, specifically by the Office of the Chief Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"b. Motion to dismiss by the State defendants: Governor Brown and Secretary of state Bowen was filed by the Attorney General of California Kamala Harris.

"Attached news paper article (Exhibit 1) shows that Harris is a fundraiser for Obama and Obama is a fundraiser for Harris.Moreover, Kamala Harris is related to #2 in Obama Department of Justice, Tony West. Maya Harris, the sister of Kamala Harris is married to West, therefore Tony West is the brother in law of Kamala Harris. West is a well known bundler, who bundled reported 65 million dollars for Obama's campaign. Clearly a person who bundled 65 million for a campaign of a politician, did not do it just to prosecute such candidate and send him to prison for his use of forged and stolen IDs. Kamala Harris had an ethical obligation to advise this court of the conflict of interest. As an Attorney General of CA, she is listed as an attorney for the State defendants in this case: Governor of California and Secretary of State of California. In relation to the elections, the goal of the Secretary of State and the Governor was to sign a legitimate certificate of vote and a legitimate certificate of ascertainment. Defendant Secretary of State is the top State election official whose main job description is assuring lawful elections. The goal of Barack Obama was to defraud the Federal and State Elections officials, as he ran and got the position of the President by fraud and use of forged and stolen IDs. Harris had a duty to disclose to the court that she is a fundraiser for Obama, that Obama is a major fundraiser for herand that her brother in law is a major bundler for Obama and #2 in ObamaDepartment of Justice. Harris had a duty to recuse herself due to conflict of interest, so that this court could appoint an independent firm to representthe State defendants to be paid from the funds allocated by the state forlegal defense of state officials sued in their official capacity."