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

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.

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.

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.

12/03/2009 100 letter to judge Carter filed by Plaintiff Pamela Barnett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Barack Obama background report)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/03/2009)

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.

(more…)

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 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…

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

11/17/2009 96 [RECAP] NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected RE: MOTION for Reconsideration 89[RECAP] 93 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (twdb) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

Sloppy and somewhat embarrassing. Although the Court did not direct her to refile, she appears to have done so anyway.

11/16/2009 93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Dismiss Case 89 filed by plaintiffs Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D Andrew Johnson, Israel D Jones, Timothy Jones, David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M Lott, David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Jerry ONeil, Robert Lee Perry, Harry Riley, Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Jeffrey Schwilk, David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Eric Swafford, Neil B Turner, Richard E Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope, Mark Wriggle, Alan Keyes PhD, Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Robin D Biron, John D Blair, David L Bosley, Loretta G Bosley, Harry G Butler, Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Cynthia Davis, Thomas S Davidson, Matthew Michael Edwards, Jason Freese, Kurt C Fuqua. Motion set for hearing on 12/7/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Orly Taitz re basis for the motion for reconsideration, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Orly Taitz, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Orly Taitz re attempt for meet and confer, # 4 Declaration Coroners report and declaration of Donald Young)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

Note: Orly denying some accusations, even though evidence that she encouraged people to contact the Court have been published. She also denies some of the accusations made by Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith, although she does not respond to all their accusations.

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.

Civil Action: SACV09-00082-DOC-AN

Motion for Reconsideration

Declaration of Orly Taitz

1. My name is Orly Taitz. I am over 18 years old, am of sound mind and free of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition.

2. I am a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state of California.

(more…)

Short and powerful response pointing out the many rules Orly has failed to follow. Do these people read politijab.com by any chance.

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 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[NO HEARING DATE YET NOTICED BY PLAINTIFF]

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.”

(more…)

A hastily written and horribly argued request was submitted by Orly Taitz

In his [Ed: Judge Sloviter is female] opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review”. Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury.

A contributor on Politijab explains the facts

And to noone’s surprise the citation has no relevance. From Politijab again we learn