Orly versus West December 26, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.4 comments
Orly versus the facts argued
ng:
- During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant US attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia.
The facts
From the Oct 5 hearing page 8 lines 13-23:
“THE COURT: And then in your argument you stated that minimally if the Court disagreed, it should be transferred to the D.C. District.
MR. WEST: No, Your Honor. The quo warranto — the plaintiffs have made the argument that the quo warranto aspects of this case should be transferred to the D.C. District. We have not suggested that that be transferred. If the — if, in fact, they wish to bring a quo warranto action, they should bring an original one in the D.C. District.
THE COURT: Thank you.”
Page 18 lines 7-14:
“MR. WEST: I don’t believe that quo warranto is applicable to the President of the United States. I would not concede that. However, if it were, the only statute that we know of that would cover this kind of a situation would be the D.C. statute. But I think that we’re not conceding at all that quo warranto would apply to the President of the United States.”
Where Orly and Charlton fail to read or comprehend December 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Unable to read the record, Orly had wondered if the ruling was indeed final and/or with prejudice and petitioned the Court for clarification. If she had just read the dismissal order and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, she would have known… Charlton’s claim that “Carter alters Oct. 29th ruling, ex post facto” has to be rejected for being at odds with the facts. Will he ‘print’ a retraction or correction?
From the defendant’s motion to dismiss, October 5, 2009:
Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for an order dismissing plaintiffs’ action against them with prejudice.
From the Judge’s dismissal order October 29, 2009:
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Nolu Chan on Orly’s latest in Rhodes v McDonalds December 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Jonathan Levy, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v McDonald.comments closed
Nolu Chan carefully shows why the claim that there were three sanctions is contradicted by the clear history of the case. Observing that Levy had an almost impossible case, the ‘three sanctions’ objection may appear to be somewhat desperate but there was nothing much to argue.
Nolu: Orly was given notice and an opportunity to respond. That is all that applies to this process. She was properly awarded sanctions.
Rhodes v McDonald – Appeal – Brief by Appellant December 18, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Jonathan Levy, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v McDonald.comments closed
Note: In a somewhat novel move, counsel is arguing that Orly was given three separate sanctions, however a closer scrutiny shows that there was only one sanction, and Orly was granted an opportunity to respond. PS Tesibira’s list of 60 failed court cases is cited… Win…
As a Friend of Politijab observes:
While your 3-sanction theory is creative, for Rule 11 purposes there was only a single sanction: the $20,000 fine. The fine was imposed pursuant to the court’s 9/18/09 order to show cause, which you have openly admitted provided your client with notice and an opportunity to respond. Since she had notice and an opportunity to respond to the 9/18/09 order, the fine imposed on 10/13/09 was done so in accordance with due process.
and
Citing to a case from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as the first citation of significance doesn’t strike me as good advocacy. It actually kind of made me giggle. Maybe that’s just me.
In other words, the first ’sanction’ was nothing more than a warning, the second ’sanction’ was an order to show cause, giving Orly the opportunity to respond, and the third one was the sanction, upped due to Orly’s failure to respond and her filing of a motion to recuse based on pretty far fetched arguments.
I also understand that the Appeals Court can in fact change the sanction if found appropriate.
No. 09 15418 BB
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________
CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs. COLONEL THOMAS MACDONALD; et al.,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ’S OPENING BRIEF
Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Honorable Clayton Land District Court No. 4:09-cv-00106-CDL
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 104- Clarification December 16, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
12/16/2009 104 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: CLARIFYING ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF OCTOBER 29, 2009: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification 103[RECAP] regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice. The Courts dismissal of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Considering that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that the statement, “dismissed with prejudice,” closes a case in such a way as to prevent the filing of a new action or the filing of an amended complaint to continue the case with a modified claim, Dr. Taitz’s filing gave the court the benefit of the doubt, and considered all the injustice and dishonesty already shown by Judge Carter as something that, in view of greater issues, could be overlooked for the present.But no such honor was to be found sitting at Judge Carter’s desk of tyranny.
Orly on terrorist watchlist? December 12, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly posted a letter from the FBI stating that they have not files on her.
Orly’s minions who lack in read abilities, are quick to ‘conclude’
THIS IS PROOF THAT ORLY TAITZ IS ON THE FBI TERRORIST WATCH LIST, THIS LETTER NEEDS TO BE SENT TO JUDGE CARTER SO HE CAN SEE THE MASSIVE FRAID AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE AMERICAN HEROIN ORLY TAITZ. PUTTING HER ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST IS JUST THE FIST STEP. SOON IT’LL BE FEMA CAMPS. EVERYONE NEEDS TO EHAIL GLENN BECK AND URGE HER TO HAVE ORLY ON A SHOW. IF HE DOESN’T THEN THEIR NEEDS TO BE A MILLION MAN MARCH ON HIS SHOW TO PROTEST HIS COVERUP OF OBAMACARE FEMA CAMPS!
Of course Orly made the same ‘logical’ error
You got it. FBI is covering up Obama sitting in the White House with stolen ss numbers and they put me on the terrorist watch list for trying to bring this massive fraud and treason to trial. Thank you judge Land and Judge Carter for dispensing justice.December 8, 2009 | No Comments
Keyes/Barnett – Motion for Clarification December 11, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.comments closed
I guess, we can’t blame Orly for asking the Court for help interpreting the rules. Not yet on the docket
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack Hussein Obama,
Michelle L.R. Obama,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and President of the Senate,
Defendants.
Motion For Clarification
On 10.29.09. this court has issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Cook v Good – Appeal – Brief for Appellant December 9, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly filed a brief after the Court had closed the case due to failure to file the motion
12/08/2009 E-BriefTendered: Appellant by Orly Taitz Stefan Frederick Cook -No-
Explanation: No means that the motion is not pending
When I have some time I will point out some of the salient points in her ‘filing’, needless to say, it is incredibly poorly argued, especially since it is an appeal and should focus on the facts of the ruling. For instance, the so-called ‘retaliation’ by the military is irrelevant to the TRO.
Orly – Angry Bob December 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.comments closed
On Orly’s blog, which still appears to be doing random redirects, we find a posting by someone named “Bob” or “Mike”
No bias grounds ? So hiring as your law clerk a person who works for the firm that defends Obama in all of these cases, in your opinion, does not present even the hint of bias or even unethical behavior on your part ? Unbelievable.
I understand “BoB”’s anger but the facts show that only in a few cases President Obama had Perkins-Coie represent him. So I am not sure what “Bob” means by “in all of these cases”. Furthermore, Perkins Coie is a large lawfirm and finally, the Clerk, although starting in October, was likely hired well before the case came before Judge Carter. And finally, unless the clerk involved was actually helping Carter with this case, there is no bias or unethical behavior on Judge Carter’s part. And if Orly believed it was improper, why did she fail to file a motion for Judge Carter to recuse himself? Even Orly may not have felt that there was a foundation for such and in fact, she does not even appear to be blaming the Judge as much as the DOJ.
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 101 – Reconsideration Denied December 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Note: Ahhh.. So unexpected…
12/04/2009 101 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Denying Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Reconsideration by Judge David O. Carter 90 . (See Order for details) (db) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
After reviewing the moving and opposing papers, the Court finds no factual, legal, or bias grounds upon which to grant the motion for reconsideration. Counsel largely repeats the same arguments made in her briefing and oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss, which is prohibited. To the extent that she does present new argument, it is without merit and does not meet the standard for reconsideration. The Court’s ruling that it lacks jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs have failed to state aclaim on their remaining causes of action, stands.
Cook v Good – Here Comes Orly: Better late than never December 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
12/01/2009 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice: (Atty: Orly Taitz)
12/01/2009 Attorney Orly Taitz’ Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED by AGyarfas
12/02/2009 MOT2 (Notice of court action) issued. c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:Mark B. Stern; c:Orly Taitz
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 100 – Letter to Judge Carter… December 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
1. I am over 18 years old, I am a resident of Orange County, California, I am of sound mind and free of any mental disease and psychological impairment.
2. From 11.11.09. until 11.22.09. I was a delegate at the Continental congress 2009.
3. On 11.16.09. I met a guest speaker at the Congress Mr. John Samson, retired Immigration officer and currently a private investigator in the state of Colorado.
4. In my presence Mr. Samson ran the background report for Mr. Barack Obama attached as exhibit.
5. The report showed Mr. Obama’s date of birth to be 08.01.09. and not 08.04.09.
6. The report showed Equatorial Guinea as ethnicity.
I solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that all the facts stated and circumstances described above are true and correct statements.
Further declarant saith naught.
/s/ Orly Taitz 12.03.09.
What Orly forgets is the following disclaimer
In other words, the data in this so called on line background report is not warranted to be free from errors and its value is limited. You get what you pay for when doing an online ‘background’ investigation.
Cook v Good – Doc 17 – Order dismissing appeal returned to Judge Land December 1, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 99 – Motion for Reconsideration: No Need for Oral Argument November 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
11/30/2009 99[RECAP] MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: taking under advisement 90Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set December 7, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. is removed from the calendar. Parties will be served with the Courts ruling. (ade) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
Orly – Tampering with Docket ? November 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly has written another fascinating posting
Tampering with docket-Important
Posted on | November 30, 2009 | No Comments
this letter was sent to Judge Carter by a concerned citizen on 10.26.09. It showed how a party, believed to be an attorney from a large prestigious law firm has doctored the docket of my case in front of judge Carter in order to poison the public opinion and poison the jury pool. I cannot confirm the findings. The party asked to be anonymous as much as possible, therefore I don’t provide his name as the moment. He has sent a copy of his letter to FBI. Since the letter came out on the 10.26.09., it should have been received by judge Carer on 10.27.09. What happened? Why did judge Carter’s order on 10.29.09. included baseless slander and defamation of my character which was made by convicted forgers and felons without an opportunity to respond on my part, while on the other hand there was no mention of such serious allegations and evidence of doctoring the docket and evidence, reportedly done by an attorney? Did judge Carter know about this letter? Did he burry it? Or was the letter burried by the clerks and never shown to judge Carter? Why didn’t FBI do a thing after this report? My clients and I are waiting for answers and action to remedy this travesty.
The letter in question outlines an accusation against a poster named Nolu Chan who presented a marked-up document based on Orly’s 88-2 filing to show that the links in the sidebar disproved Orly’s assertions in DOC 88-2
DOC 88-2 Keyes v Obama – Exhibit A – AP Newswire Re Obama Kenyan Born
BELOW is a copy of DOC 88-2 with the sidebar linked pages appended. I used the PDF as submitted to the Court by Orly and appended the links using Adobe Acrobat. The page purported archived on June 27, 2004 shows links to pages from future dates.
DOC 88-2 Keyes v Obama – Exhibit A – With Sidebar Links Appended by nolu chan
You cannot make up this stuff. I wonder how patient Judge Carter will be…
Rhodes v McDonald 11th Cir – Motion to Stay and Motion for Leave to file out of time statement November 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Orly Taitz, Rhodes v McDonald.comments closed
Seems that Orly was too late to file the civil appeal statement and her motion to file for stay was also late.
| Date | Motion | Party | Emergency |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/17/2009 | Motion for Leave to File Civil Appeal Statement Out of Time: (Atty: Jonathan Harris Levy) | Orly Taitz 29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY RCHO STA MARG, CA 92688-3616 (949) 683-5411 Fax: (949) 766-7036 drtaitz@yahoo.com |
No |
| 11/20/2009 | Motion to Stay Lower Court Action Pending Appeal: (Atty: Jonathan Harris Levy) | Orly Taitz 29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY RCHO STA MARG, CA 92688-3616 (949) 683-5411 Fax: (949) 766-7036 drtaitz@yahoo.com |
No |
Cook v Good – appeal dismissed due to lack of prosecution November 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Appeal, Cook v Good, Orly Taitz.comments closed
Oops.. Orly dropped another one… So far unconfirmed
The docket was confirmed by the 11th Circuit Court clerk. Yeah…. Pacer for the 11th Circuit is also online but requires IE, otherwise you get stuck in an eternal logon cycle.
09-14698-CC Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good
09-14698-CC
Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good
| Closed |
| Docket #: | 09-14698-CC |
| Short Style: | Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good |
| Docket Date: | 09/18/2009 |
| Lead Case: | |
| Agency: | |
| Nature of Suit: | Civil Rights: Other |
| Misc. Type: | |
| Clerk: | Dixon, Eleanor |
| Clerk Phone: | (404) 335-6172 |
Orly’s dreaming again November 29, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Orly Taitz.comments closed
Orly is hoping that Sarah Palin will interrupt her tour of the US to become a plaintiff in her failed lawsuit. Since the problem is that the case was filed after President Obama’s presidency officially started, Sarah Palin will have as much status as anyone else, which, as Judge Carter so eloquently explained is ‘none’. Why would she dream that Sarah would even be interested in getting involved? As to getting immediate discovery, have we not hear that one before? As to Obama being gone within 24 hours, did she not promise that he would be gone in 30 days? And we all know how that went.
Sarah Palin has perfect standing, as well as McCain. They ran as candidates of a major party. if not for Obama’s fraud they would be the president and vice president. She can show damage and standing. Instead of being intimidated by Obama’s thugs in MSM and selling out for a few million dollars book deal, she needs to stand up and do the right thing and either join as an additional plaintiff in my motion for reconsideration or motion for leave of court to file a second amended complaint. With her on board we can get immediate discovery. The moment the stay of discovery is lifted, Obama will be gone within 24 hours. we all know he has nothing to show.
Just plain weird. November 28, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Orly Taitz.comments closed
A somewhat ironic headline of a posting on Orly’s site states
Yes, they used several convicted criminals to write to the judge, to provide perjured testimony, to try to ruin my reputation.
Funny though how these people have gone from being closely related to the Orly lawsuit, to convicted criminals who provide perjured testimony. Or am I somehow confused as to whom Orly is referring here?
Since Orly appears to be accusing these people of perjuring themselves, I am looking forward to Orly’s response to the Court, including perhaps a motion to have their testimony referred for further inquiry into the perjury?
Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Doc 98 – Opposition to Amended Motion for Reconsideration November 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Keyes v Obama, Keyes v Obama (Docs), Orly Taitz.comments closed
Note: Short and to the point
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.
Defendants.
No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx)
OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby set forth their opposition to Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration of Order to Dismiss Under Rule 59E and Rule 60.” Rule 7-18 of the Local Rules of the Central District of California provides as follows:
“Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.”
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration completely violates, both procedurally and substantively, the above-quoted Local Rule, and, accordingly, should be summarily denied.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: November 19, 2009
GEORGE S. CARDONA
Acting United States Attorney
LEON WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
/s/ Roger E. West
ROGER E. WEST
Assistant United States Attorney
First Assistant Chief, Civil Division
/s/ David A. DeJute
DAVID A. DeJUTE
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants
