Paul Guthrie – May the force be with you… Part II

Okay, Guthrie had just been informed by the Judge in his first case that it had been closed and Guthrie filed a new case in the same court.

Case 2: 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL was filed, 02/11/2013,  in the District Court of the Southern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker (SEB) Docket

And on 2/26/2013, he filed an amended complaint (120 pages), removing Congress and the House and adding the speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. He also added Muller, the director of the FBI, because he had reported this ‘hideous’ crime to the FBI and they considered it an issue of low priority. In a somewhat circular fashion, he therefore concluded that the FBI is part of the conspiracy. The whole house of cards would of course fall apart if Guthrie’s assertions were flawed. Furthermore, since under our Constitution, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, accusing the FBI of some nefarious conspiracy seems rather circular. One could try misprision but that too does not require the FBI to take action. Lacking a foundation as to why the FBI, and others should take any specific actions, the case appears to be doomed from the moment of filing, but remember, there is still the issue of standing, which remained unresolved. While unable to wait for the 60 days to elapse, Guthrie files several motions

2013/04/02 Motion to compel (10 pages), Motion for declaratory Judgment (11 pages), Motion for Default Judgment (26 pages) in the motion to compel, Guthie outlines his flawed understanding of the Rules of Civil Procedure

It has been well over three weeks since the defendants have received Guthrie’s complaint, but they have not bothered to take cognizance of the necessity to respond within 21 days if they are not going to first remove Obama, a legal necessity in order to cure the defect that as long as they maintain Obama in power they are currently just ordinary citizens who cannot prove that they are valid constitutional government agents of the constitutional government.

Or perhaps he does understand the 90 day limit but believes that he is exempt?

By failing to reply to Guthrie in a timely manner within 21 days, and given that the historically unique situation in this case only supports allowing 21 days to reply, the defendants are seen to be delaying and obstructing justice and possibly committing High Treason.
Lacking any case law that supports his claim that 21 days is enough… Of course, it is not clear if Guthrie has even managed to properly serve the parties. For this reason, these motions were denied without prejudice until Guthrie resolved the standing issue. In the motion for declaratory Judgment, Guthrie asserts that:

The United States legal system has long recognized and established in the case law that an unconstitutional act, appointment, order, rule, etc., is null and void from the time that the unconstitutional act, appointment, order, rule, etc., was made.

Again not quoting any relevant case law, precedents, rules or statutes, and ignoring the de facto officer doctrine, which clearly applies even if we are to take Guthrie’s claims seriously. Of course, Guthrie still has not explained why the defendants should be denied their statutory rights? The motion for default judgment, similarly fails to explain why the court should move forward when the parties have yet to respond and when the parties have another 30+ days to do so.

In the motion for default Judgment Guthrie explains his ‘logic’ The defendant, United States of America, is only the United States in name, not

In order to be the United States that is entitled to 60 days to respond, there would have to be a constitutionally-empowered and constitutionally-assembled government called the United States of America that exists. No such government exists.
In that case Guthrie should not have referred to the parties as ‘de-facto’. But of course, it does not matter what Guthrie believes, until properly removed, these are government officers.
So on 2013/04/09 the Judge denies the filing of the various motions and issues an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for the same reasons his previous case was dismissed.
On 2013/04/17 Guthrie replies  with a whopping 148 pages, effectively accepting that there exists a large amount of precedent for judges to reject his claims but insisting that they all got it wrong, period. So on 2013/05/08, the judge dismissed the case.
Guthrie has written an analysis of the final ruling, in which he asks a question I believe to be a false duality.
 If my claim were not true, that Obama and Stinson and the other defendants are frauds and criminals engaging in political criminal activity that is a religious hate crime against males from the States, then it would be Paul Guthrie who is the criminal outlaw that is hateful and insane.
There are other possibilities, such as Paul Guthrie just being wrong, period. He proposed a novel argument but was never able to argue the case because he lacked standing. Would the argument have found acceptance by the Court? Given the legal precedents, I doubt it, but we may never know.