Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL – Entry and Order Dismissing Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PAUL A. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
VS. 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.,
Defendants.

Entry and Order Dismissing Action

I

Paul A. Guthrie commenced this action shortly after a prior action docketed as Guthrie v. Obama, etal., No. 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL (S.D.Ind. Jan. 18, 2013)(hereafter “the prior action”) was dismissed. Upon its initial examination of this case, the court noted that “[t]he plaintiff is recycling claims put to rest” in the prior action. The plaintiff was given a period of time in which to show cause why the present action should not be summarily dismissed “for the same reasons.”

The plaintiff has responded to the foregoing directions by asserting that the disposition of the prior action was invalid. This apparently explains why he has tried again and this time has added Judge Magnus-Stinson as a defendant.

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL- MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1) Defendant Obama was placed on all 50 State ballots, unlawfully selected in an illegal fraudulent election, and unlawfully installed and maintained in the Office of President once in 2008/09 and again in 2012/13, contrary to the Constitution because Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. He was selected and installed despite numerous protests in dozens of court challenges, stemming from before both Presidential elections, claiming that Obama was not and is not a natural born Citizen, as required by Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not one court case before this one has stated the correct definition and meaning of Article II natural born Citizen, the discovered Natural Law Theory of the Father definition, as all previous cases relied upon the provably incorrect Unity Theory (of both U.S. soil territory jurisdiction birth and both parents must be U.S. citizens, all inclusive), or the government’s Positive Law Theory definition (U.S. soil jurisdiction birth, or mother is a U.S. citizen, inclusive or mutually exclusive, either one will do according to the government as long as a State citizen father is not a factor in the creation of the natural born Citizen offspring or natural born Citizen status.)

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL – MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1) Plaintiff Guthrie filed his case [number 1:13 -CV- 0234 SEB - DKL] and made service of process upon the defendants, with the last defendant being served on March 4, 2013. The Proof of Service verification for all of the defendants has been filed with the Court. Not counting the day of March 4, then 21 days from the time the defendants were served expires at the end of the day March 26, 2013.

2) It is now more than 21 days and there has been no reply from the defendants. Guthrie is now entitled to a default judgment. Here is the language in the Summons served upon the defendants that describes the rules of civil procedure regarding the time allotted for a reply to plaintiff’s suit and the consequences for failure to respond:
A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff, whose name and address are:

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – case 1:13-CV-0234-SEB-DKL – MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

1) Every one of the defendants, by virtue of their employment in their offices, has a duty to know what an Article II natural born Citizen is and whether or not Obama is one, in order to establish whether or not the defendants are valid representatives of the constitutional government engaged in lawful duties on behalf of the American People, so as not to be defrauding the American People and so that they can properly do their jobs and enforce the criminal codes and Constitution. Furthermore, if the defendants did not know or comprehend what a natural born Citizen was before they received Guthrie’s complaint, by the facts presented therein they certainly now know what a natural born Citizen is and that Obama is not one.

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-00080-JMS-DKL – Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Paul A. Guthrie, in propria persona,
(A.K.A. General Jedi Pauly)
Plaintiff
VS.
United States of America;
Barrack Hussein Obama II, the alleged President of the United States, of America, and individually;
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., the alleged Vice President of the United States of America, and individually;
Martin Dempsey, the alleged Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Office of the President of the United States of America, and individually, Eric Holder, the alleged Attorney General of the United States of America, and individually, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the alleged Secretary of the United States of America, and individually, Elena Kagan, the alleged Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America, and individually, Sonia Sotomayor, the alleged Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America, and individually, United States Congress; United States Senate; US. House of Representatives; et aL;
Defendants

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-00234-SEB-DKL – Docket

U.S. District Court
Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-00234-SEB-DKL
GUTHRIE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Assigned to: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Date Filed: 02/11/2013
Date Terminated: 05/08/2013
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Continue reading

Guthrie v US – 1:13-cv-00080-JMS-DKL – Docket

U.S. District Court
Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-00080-JMS-DKL
GUTHRIE v. OBAMA et al
Assigned to: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue
Demand: $9,999,000
Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Date Filed: 01/14/2013
Date Terminated: 01/18/2013
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 540 Mandamus & Other
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Continue reading

Paul Guthrie – May the force be with you…

A little known, but interesting, case was initiated by Paul Guthrie, aka Jedi Pauly, who filed two cases in the Federal Court of Indiana, claiming that he knows the ‘true meaning’ of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

Case 1: 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL, a petition for writ of mandamus, was filed, 14 January 2013, in the District Court of the Southern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and referred to Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue (DKL) – Docket

Continue reading

Guthrie v Obama et al – 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL – Document 6 – Order dismissing action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

PAUL A. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.,
Defendants.

Case: 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
Mr. Guthrie’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. In an action filed in forma pauperis, the court may raise on its own volition the issue of whether an action is malicious or frivolous under § 1915(e), and may test the complaint even before service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) grants the court the authority to dismiss the case at
any time if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. If a complaint is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, it lacks an arguable basis in law and may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the first question in every case, and if the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction it must proceed no further. State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474, 478 (7th Cir. 1998). “Subject-matter jurisdiction means adjudicatory competence over a category of disputes.” Wisconsin Valley Imp. Co. v. United States,
569 F.3d 331, 333 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), and Eberhart v. United States,
546 U.S. 12 (2005)).

The doctrine of standing enforces the constitutional requirement of a “case or controversy” found in Article III of the Constitution. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 695 (7th Cir. 2011). Standing requires, inter alia,
that a plaintiff suffer an injury in fact and that there be “a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff’s
injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998).

The action is dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous because the court lacks jurisdiction over Guthrie’s action. The reason for this is that he lacks standing to seek the ouster from office of the President and the Vice-President or to obtain the other relief he seeks. See Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 19, 20 (D.D.C. 2012).

“[U]nless both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction have been established, a district court must dismiss the suit without addressing the substance of the plaintiff’s claim.” Kromrey v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 423 Fed. Appx. 624, 626,
2011 WL 2419879, 1 (7th Cir. 2011). In this instance, subject matter jurisdiction is absent, requiring that the action be dismissed. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)(“‘Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.’”)(quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall, 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)).

II.

The plaintiff’s motion for an order directing service of process [3] is denied as moot.

Judgment consistent with th is Entry shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

IN – Guthrie v US – Dismissed

See also Guthrie’s (aka ‘general’ Jedi Pauly’s) highly entertaining website. Read also Mario Apuzzo’s take on “Jedi Pauly” And please let’s not mention Pauly’s ‘scientific’ proof…

05/08/2013 19

Entry and Order Dismissing Action. (See Entry for details.) Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/8/2013. c/m (TMA) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 20

CLOSED JUDGMENT – The court, having this day made its Entry, IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED that this cause of action is dismissed. The claim against Judge Magnus-Stinson is dismissed with prejudice. All other claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/8/2013. c/m (TMA) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

Continue reading

IN – Guthrie v US – Guthrie Reply to OSC

The judge ordered Guthrie to explain why he should allow him to file a lawsuit which had already been dismissed in a prior action. Guthrie submits 148 pages of hilarious fiction but in the end, will fail to impress the Judge who will dismiss with prejudice.

A hilarious quote

Is it that only layman Guthrie can comprehend and discover that a female must seek permission from a male and submit to his political and physical authority and let him do his thing to make her pregnant in order to create a natural born Citizen, thus making the male the source of political authority and physically responsible for the creation of a natural born Citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen of some country that the father is a native of?

Paul also has some fantasies as to how he has check-mated everyone with his filings… A the imaginations of a pro se are so cute. Paul recently has made a quick rise to the top of the list of most hilarious filings related to President Obama’s birth. I am not so sure if the Judge will have the same sense of humor though.

But he has still failed to show any foundation for standing…

IN – Guthrie v US – Guthrie Reply to OSC

The judge ordered Guthrie to explain why he should allow him to file a lawsuit which had already been dismissed in a prior action. Guthrie submits 148 pages of hilarious fiction but in the end, will fail to impress the Judge who will dismiss with prejudice.

A hilarious quote

Is it that only layman Guthrie can comprehend and discover that a female must seek permission from a male and submit to his political and physical authority and let him do his thing to make her pregnant in order to create a natural born Citizen, thus making the male the source of political authority and physically responsible for the creation of a natural born Citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen of some country that the father is a native of?

Paul also has some fantasies as to how he has check-mated everyone with his filings… A the imaginations of a pro se are so cute. Paul recently has made a quick rise to the top of the list of most hilarious filings related to President Obama’s birth. I am not so sure if the Judge will have the same sense of humor though.

But he has still failed to show any foundation for standing…

IN – Guthrie v US – Guthrie Reply to OSC

The judge ordered Guthrie to explain why he should allow him to file a lawsuit which had already been dismissed in a prior action. Guthrie submits 148 pages of hilarious fiction but in the end, will fail to impress the Judge who will dismiss with prejudice.

A hilarious quote

Is it that only layman Guthrie can comprehend and discover that a female must seek permission from a male and submit to his political and physical authority and let him do his thing to make her pregnant in order to create a natural born Citizen, thus making the male the source of political authority and physically responsible for the creation of a natural born Citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen of some country that the father is a native of?

Paul also has some fantasies as to how he has check-mated everyone with his filings… A the imaginations of a pro se are so cute. Paul recently has made a quick rise to the top of the list of most hilarious filings related to President Obama’s birth. I am not so sure if the Judge will have the same sense of humor though.

But he has still failed to show any foundation for standing…

IN – Guthrie v US – Guthrie Reply to OSC

The judge ordered Guthrie to explain why he should allow him to file a lawsuit which had already been dismissed in a prior action. Guthrie submits 148 pages of hilarious fiction but in the end, will fail to impress the Judge who will dismiss with prejudice.

A hilarious quote

Is it that only layman Guthrie can comprehend and discover that a female must seek permission from a male and submit to his political and physical authority and let him do his thing to make her pregnant in order to create a natural born Citizen, thus making the male the source of political authority and physically responsible for the creation of a natural born Citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen of some country that the father is a native of?

Paul also has some fantasies as to how he has check-mated everyone with his filings… A the imaginations of a pro se are so cute. Paul recently has made a quick rise to the top of the list of most hilarious filings related to President Obama’s birth. I am not so sure if the Judge will have the same sense of humor though.

But he has still failed to show any foundation for standing…

IN – Guthrie v US – Guthrie Reply to OSC

The judge ordered Guthrie to explain why he should allow him to file a lawsuit which had already been dismissed in a prior action. Guthrie submits 148 pages of hilarious fiction but in the end, will fail to impress the Judge who will dismiss with prejudice.

A hilarious quote

Is it that only layman Guthrie can comprehend and discover that a female must seek permission from a male and submit to his political and physical authority and let him do his thing to make her pregnant in order to create a natural born Citizen, thus making the male the source of political authority and physically responsible for the creation of a natural born Citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen of some country that the father is a native of?

Paul also has some fantasies as to how he has check-mated everyone with his filings… A the imaginations of a pro se are so cute. Paul recently has made a quick rise to the top of the list of most hilarious filings related to President Obama’s birth. I am not so sure if the Judge will have the same sense of humor though.

But he has still failed to show any foundation for standing…

IN – Orly v Election Commission – Hearing to show case

Wow… Not only does it fail to address the issues but Orly also uses this as an opportunity to accuse Judge Reid

Not conducting investigation of forgery of Obama’s IDs and not directing Attorney General to do so will actually constitute an egregious violation of the code of Judicial conduct by Honorable Judge Reid.

Just as when asked by Judge Land to present her case as to why she should not be sanctioned, Orly responds with meritless accusations. Let’s hope that the Judge will act accordingly

Response to 11.09.2012 fax from Judge Reid sent to attorney Gregg Black and forwarded by Gregg Black to Orly Taitz via fax

Attn Honorable Judge Reid

Dear Judge Reid,

1. I received from you a letter stating that this court intends to hold a hearing to show cause regarding release and publication of a certain audio transcript of the October 22 hearing, which contains expert testimony of forgery in the birth certificate of Barack Obama. “Parties are ordered to show cause  whether or not they should be in Contempt of Court for the release and posting on “Youtube” of the audio recording of October 22, 2012 hearing, all in violation of this court order and pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct rule 2.17”

Continue reading

IN – Taitz v Election Commission – Was audio of the hearing ‘leaked’

Praise Indy reports that

In late September, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid ordered that a hearing be held to determine if Taitz and the other plaintiffs had any case to be adjudicated.  That led to the hearing October 22nd.

Audio of that hearing was uploaded to You Tube on November 1st by someone identifying themselves as “jdirt100”. No other information about that individual is contained on You Tube. Indiana media are forbidden under Indiana law to air audio (or video) of an Indiana court proceeding that wasn’t authorized by that court.  Further we aren’t allowed to post the link to that audio.

Superior Court officials and the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission are investigating who might have made the audio recording and uploaded it to You Tube.  Chances that it was personnel in Judge Reid’s court or members of the defense are very slim as that would be strict violation of Indiana court rules and would result in individuals being fired and possibly losing their licenses to practice law.

Orly insists that

Somebody, a third party,  uploaded on you tube an audio tape, which was legally recorded by the court itself and was legally sold by the court itself, by the court reporter Julie, to a number of people.

The article states

” Audio recordings of Indiana Supreme, Appellate and Tax Court hearings and trials can be made public, but only with the express approval of those courts. Local court proceedings are not to be made broadcast or posted on line.”

There is a pilot project going on in Indiana

“This is a deliberate and wise examination,” of how such a system would work, said Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, who is among those overseeing a pilot project at the direction of the Indiana Supreme Court. The project will install automated video systems in the courtrooms of Allen Superior Judge Nancy Boyer, Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner and Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush.