Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

Judge Carter

The case of Newdow v. Bush is instructive regarding the power of the Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President. In Newdow, the court considered whether plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction against President Bush restraining him from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at his inauguration. 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 268 (D. D.C. 2005). The court observed that issuing an injunction against the President “raises serious separation of powers concerns” and further asserted that “[t]here is longstanding legal authority that the judiciary lacks the power to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the co-equal branches of the government–the President and the Congress.” Id. at 280. The court rejected the argument that there should be an exception read into the President’s immunity “where he is claimed to have violated the Constitution.” Id. at 282. Further, the court found that the same considerations foreclosing the possibility of issuing an injunction against the President foreclosed the possibility of issuing a request for declaratory judgment. Id. at 281. In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that President Obama is not a constitutionally elected president. Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enjoin the President from issuing a particular order; they request that President Obama be enjoined from issuing any orders whatsoever and be enjoined from holding the office of President. Plaintiffs make it clear from their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not satisfy the natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, 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.

(more…)

16.The court erred in not including in the order and not considering an affidavit of Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted by the plaintiffs as part of the attachment in   Dossier #1 and Dossier #6, as Ms Lines, one of the most renown forensic document expert stated in her affidavit that Mr. Obama’s short form Certification of Live Birth cannot be considered genuine without analyzing the original currently sealed in the Health Department in Hawaii. Court also erred in omitting from the final order affidavits of licensed investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels. Court erred in refusing to lift the stay of discovery and granting a motion to dismiss, whereby  the court de facto aided and abetted obstruction of Justice by Mr. Obama

Again Orly fails to follow the Local Rules for filing a motion for reconsideration. But the dossier is of no relevance to the ruling which is based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, Orly once again argues the merits while the dismissal was based on the lack of jurisdiction. Worse, she is accusing the Court of aiding and abetting Obstruction of Justice. That’s a serious claim, and deserves a matching response.

Someone with far more attention to detail noticed the discrepancy between dates in Orly’s Certificate of Service

I the undersigned Orly Taitz, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, November 5, 2009, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:

ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)

DAVID A. DeJUTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS 9th day of November, 2009

Orly

15.The court has made an erroneous and prejudicial statement regarding the service of process by the plaintiffs. It was a clear error of fact and of law. Mr. Obama has been served four times and evaded service of process.   As the original action was filed by the undersigned counsel on the Inauguration Day (prior to swearing, as Mr. Obama took a proper oath only the next day, on January 21^st) by the undersigned counsel against Mr. Obama as an individual for his actions as an individual prior to the election, the undersigned counsel has properly served Mr. Obama as an individual under rule 4e and properly demanded from the court a default judgment and post default discovery.

Orly’s claim is a reiteration of the oral and written arguments presented to the Court and inappropriate to be argued in a motion for reconsideration.

(more…)

Eyewitnesses put this massive protest in the proper perspective, there were 3 that showed up (that includes Orly)

Update: About 15- 20 ppl are outside #Fox News, protesting O’Reilly calling birthers “wackos”. I don’t even know where to begin.

12:33 PM

Sean Hannity estimates there are 35,000 people in attendence and will use footage from other rallies to illustrate this… (ROTFL)

Pictures below the fold

The Court’s Local Rules are clear but seem to be not always followed by Orly. These are mostly ‘minor’ issues, except perhaps L.R. 7-18 which outlines when a motion for reconsideration is appropriate.

L.R. 6-1 Notice and Service of Motion

Unless otherwise provided by rule or order of the Court, no oral motions will be recognized and every motion shall be presented by written notice of motion. The notice of motion shall be filed with the Clerk and served on each of the parties either by deposit in the mail or by personal service. If mailed, the notice of motion shall be served not later than twenty-four (24) days before the Motion Day designated in the notice. If served personally, the notice of motion shall be served not later than twenty-one (21) days before the Motion Day designated in the notice. The notice of motion and all moving papers in support thereof shall be filed with the Clerk not less than twenty (20) days prior to the Motion Day for which the matter is noticed. The Court may order a shorter time. All motions belonging upon the Motion Day calendar shall be placed by the Clerk upon the calendar for hearing upon the day for which the motion is noticed.

The Motion as filed contains no motion hearing date. Update: The motion does not seem to contain a date, but the docket entry shows one Motion set for hearing on 11/20/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge David O. Carter. Problem is that this is not according to the LR which requires that the motion should have been filed Oct 30/31 not November 09.
(more…)

Who would have thought that our Orly is so familiar with Traffic Court

Mustang Orly and her driving record

Case Number: 14852LC
Defendant: Taitz, Orly
Date:  10/12/2009

Section Statute: 22348(b) VC  Speeding greater than 100 miles per hour
Plea: NOT GUILTY 11/03/2009

12/18/2009 Court Trial

22348(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction punishable, as follows:
(1) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this subdivision, by a fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). The court may also suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle for a period not to exceed 30 days pursuant to Section 13200.5.

3. The court has stated in the pleadings that the undersigned attorney has encouraged her supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence his decision in the October 5 hearing. This is not true. The plaintiffs request this stricken from the final order.

4. During October 5 hearing your honor has stated that the undersigned attorney encouraged the supporters to attempt to influence the court’s decision. This never happened. When the undersigned attorney requested to respond, the court stated: “no, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibility”. The undersigned attorney has done nothing of a kind and believes that this information might’ve come from some ex parte communications with the presiding judge coming from parties connected to the defense, which is prejudicial, inflammatory and defamatory. The undersigned requests it stricken from the order.

Orly has provided a list of addresses through Neil Shankey and Susan Daniels about the addresses linked to President Obama’s SSN. With minimal effort, I managed to link most of them to valid addresses, including overlapping time-frames. So far Chicago only. Why Orly needs discovery is  beyond me.

(more…)