MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to opposition in detail

With comments interspersed. Will update over time, Orly’s response is fascinating and very Orlyesque. I am not a lawyer, just my best reading.


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al
Democratic Party of Mississippi et al )



On January 22 parties held a phone conference with Judge Wingate. During the conference Hon Judge Wingate ordered Defendants to respond within 2 weeks to January 21 “Notice of New Material Facts” filed by Plaintiff Taitz. Taitz to reply within a week after the last response. Further, this court brought to the attention of the parties a comment that Judge Wingate’s law clerk found as being posted on the web site of Orly Taitz,, by one Virgil E. Byrd, where aforementioned Virgil Byrd made an allegation of ex-parte communication by this court and made defamatory statements. (Exhibit 1 “Virgil E. Byrd” comment.) Hon. Judge Wingate advised the parties that he will contact the US Attorney for the Southern District of MS and he will be seeking  a criminal investigation to ascertain identity of the individual who made this comment.

Judge Wingate questioned if parties know who this person is. Taitz responded that the name and alleged e-mail address are probably fictitious, however the person can be identified by his computer IP (Internet Protocol), which identifies individual computers, and in the control panel of her blog she has IP addresses of people who post comments, including one by Virgil Byrd.(Exhibit 1) Taitz responded that Hon. Henry Wingate will be able to ascertain identity of this person by issuing a subpoena to the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the person with a specific IP. She also stated that she believes that the person, who did this, belongs to a group “Fogbow” which was created in 2009, and ran by a couple of individuals: William Bryan posting under Pseudonym “Foggy” and Barack Obama’s personal attorney in this case, Scott J. Tepper, who posted thousands of defamatory comments under the pseudonym “Sterngard Friegen”. Taitz stated that she believes that these comments are posted by Obama operatives who are engaged in intimidation and bullying of Taitz and are possibly seeking to upset judges. Judge Wingate asked defense attorneys if they have any opposition (sic) to him forwarding this matter to the U.S. Attorney for criminal investigation and issuing a subpoena to the Internet Hosting company. The only opposition (sic) was from Mr. Tepper, who did not want Orly Taitz to issue the subpoena. The court responded that the subpoena will not come from Orly Taitz, the subpoena will come from the court and will be returnable directly to the court.

[NBC: Excellent move by Mr Tepper. No fishing expedition by Orly.]

Hon. Judge Wingate asked other parties if they know about this matter and if they know identity of the person who made the comment. All of the attorneys stated that they do not have such knowledge. Mr. Obama’s attorney, Mr. Tepper, stated that he is familiar with Orly Taitz website as he reads it every day, however he does not know identity of the person who posted the comment in question.

[NBC: It is unlikely that it was any of the regular contributors to the Fogbow as most were not too happy with the attempt to pwn and punk Orly. While Orly may not appreciate the Fogbow, they have been on the mark in most of the cases, predicting with astonishing accuracy the outcome of the many cases. Orly complains too much and lacks in specifics, once again.]

Additionally, attorneys for the defense stated that all of the new material facts in January 21, 2014 “Notice of New Material Facts” were irrelevant. Taitz questioned, how could the death of one of the Main parties in the RICO conspiracy be irrelevant to the case. She questioned why Mr. Dukes, the attorney for HI Director of Health, Loretta Deliana Anton Fuddy, did not notify the court that his client is dead. Mr. Dukes responded that it was just an accident and it is not relevant to the case.

[NBC: The police indeed found it to have been accidental and the death was not relevant to the case under Rule 25]

Taitz questioned how does Mr. Duke know that the death of his client is just an accident if NTSB is still investigating the crash of the small plane in which she flew and investigation is expected to take 12-18 months.

How does Mr. Duke know that it was an accident and not tampering and sabotage of the plane in order to assassinate the witness and party to the RICO scheme, Loretta Fuddy, who certified a forgery as a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

[NBC: There are always possibilities but one cannot speculate beyond the reasonable.

“On 12/11/13 at about 1537 hours, a Makani Kai Air, turboprop, airplane lost power off the island of Molokai approximately a half mile outside of Kalaupapa. Nine people were on board including the State Director of Health Ms. Loretta FUDDY (65). It has been determined that FUDDY’S cause of death was cardiac arrhythmia as a result of stress and the manner of death was accidental.”

Source: Maui Feed


Taitz added that it was an opportune moment, as it was a rare occasion when both Fuddy and her Deputy Director Keith Yamamoto, in charge of vital records, such as birth certificates, were flying together and both of them could have been targeted for assassination to tie the loose ends.

[NBC: Taitz likes to speculate but lacks in specifics. Which is why the court in this case will likely grant the motion to dismiss.]

Further, Taitz asked why is it irrelevant, that in December ACA Washington DC Healthcare Exchange could not verify Obama’s identity based on submitted application?

[NBC: Because it has no relevance to President Obama’s Social Security Number or eligibility. It merely shows that the records for our President are not easily accessible by the system. Orly believes that somehow this is evidence of something but fails to provide any evidence, or argument.]

Taitz advised Judge Wingate that after Obama’s application was denied on line due to inability to confirm his identity, Obama sent his aide to submit his application manually. White House announced that Obama’s identity could not be confirmed due to the fact that his records were “scrubbed”, expunged. Taitz sought a FOIA release of information from Washington DC Healthcare Exchange, seeking any order by any judge to seal or scrub/expunge Obama’s ID information. Response stated that there is no such order.

[NBC: Orly again misses the point. The mere fact that the Washington DC Healthcare Exchange had not sought an order to seal or scrub President Obama’s information does not mean that these data are freely available. ]

Judge Wingate ordered parties to respond to the new facts prior to him rendering a ruling on pending motions.


Defense argued that new material facts are irrelevant, however new material facts provide additional plausibility under the precedents of Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlanic v Twombley (sic), 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)

[NBC: Under Twombly and Iqbal, it has become simpler for the courts to reject claims made by the plaintiff.]
The Courts have uniformly held the standard applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)) is the same as is applicable as a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Warnock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, 2008 WL 4594129, 3,citing Doe v. Myspace, Inc., 528 F.3dd 413,418 (5th Cir. 2008) In evaluating the pleading the analysis is focused on whether, “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff’, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. (Ibid, citing Hughes v. The Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420. This standard applies irrespective of whether the motion is entitled a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings as motions filed after the pleadings have closed, or the moving party has filed a response, each are treated as motions for judgment on the pleadings. Warnock, supra, 3, citing Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324.

[NBC: I am not sure why Orly raises two cases that undermine her position, but then again. But in an earlier filing she had argued the opposite:

The MDEC set forth numerous reasons why Taitz’s RICO claim must be dismissed in its opening brief. (JOP Memo at 21-24.) Rather than respond to the legal arguments and authorities
set forth in the JOP Memo, Taitz provides a multi-page “cut and paste” from the facially deficient
FAC. Compare ECF 47 at 14-21 with FAC at 4-9. She then asserts (without authority) that Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1954 (2007),  do not apply in this case because the FAC was filed in state court. (ECF 47 at 21.) In other words, Taitz “fails to support her contention with any legal argument. She does not cite any [applicable] law supporting … such a claim, nor does she cite any analogous law from another jurisdiction.



Further, consideration must be given to Congress’ and the Supreme Court’s mandate that Civil “RICO shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose.”Keystone Insurance Company v. Houghton 863 F.2d 1125, 1129, (1997), citing Organized Crime control Act, Pub.L. No. 91-452 §904(a), 84 Stat. 942, 947 (1970) (codified at 18 U.S.C. §1961 note (1982); and Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co. 473 U.S. 479; 105 S.Ct. 3276, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (86), other internal citations omitted. Accord, Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., U.S. Minn., (1997). 521 U. S. 179, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 323.

Specifically, all that Plaintiff must do is plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. (Ibid.) While the allegations must elevate the claim above the speculative level, the fact that a recovery is doubtful does not warrant the granting of the motion.

[NBC: But what if the claims are all speculative in nature? Orly has failed to provide anything that appears to overcome this objection.]

(Ibid., citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); and In re Katrina Canal breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, (5th Cir. 2007). Stated differently, the issue is not whether the Plaintiff will prevail but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim. (Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999).

In the present matter, Plaintiff has pled more than sufficient facts to defeat Defendants’ attempt to have the court dismiss the matter without further query or discovery.

[NBC: Nice assertion but just saying it does not make it so.

Although Taitz is an attorney who has been licensed to practice by the State of California  since December 2002, and has had more than six months to prepare the TRS [ECF 49], it is an  unresponsive, incomprehensible, and nonsensical “word salad” that demonstrates nothing more
than Taitz’s determination to continue her malicious and frivolous use of the courts to further her
political smear campaign against the President – and anyone who dares to reject her fantastical
delusions. The TRS, while as vague as her FAC, baldly asserts an even broader nationwide
conspiracy than asserted in the FAC – one which involves dozens of non-defendants including
various Obama Administration officials, Secretaries of State from around the country, media personalities, one of the MDEC’s attorneys in this case, anonymous internet posters who have
criticized her or called her names, unidentified court law clerks, attorneys, and other employees, and  the Federal judge who sua sponte sanctioned her $20,000 for her prior misconduct in birther  litigation.
According to Taitz, all of these people are involved in a vast conspiracy to fool people
into believing that President Obama is eligible for his office, to prevent her from succeeding in this and related litigation, and to defame and harass Taitz and her supporters. Setting aside the utter implausibility of a conspiracy – stretching from the Northeast to the Hawaiian Islands and including a cast of hundreds – Taitz has failed to allege adequately a single required element of her purported RICO claim, for the reasons already stated in the JOP Memo.



Directly addressing the issue of “plausibility”, Plaintiff has included in her complaint the supporting declarations of witnesses attesting to the truth of the factual allegations set forth in the questioned pleading.

[NBC: Witnesses… ROTFL… But again, these ‘witnesses’ do not make her complaint less speculative.]

As noted by the courts, the facts set forth in the pleadings together with documents attached thereto are considered in determining whether the “material facts” are in dispute. (See, Keys v. Safeway Ins. Co., 556 F.Supp.2d 586, 588 (S.D. Mississippi 2008), citing Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990); and Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 313 F3d 305, 313 (5th Cir. 2002), Defendants clearly dispute the facts and the issue is whether the claim is provable. This is an issue for the trier-of – fact and is not appropriately adjudicated by way of a Motion to Dismiss.

[NBC: Orly may not fully comprehend the standard. The fact that defendants dispute Orly’s conclusions, do not make them disputing ‘material facts’.]

Plaintiff has essentially, and successfully, pled a claim for violation of Civil RICO as her 41 page detailed factual statement together with the accompanying documents satisfy every required element of the liberally construed, remedial statute.

[NBC: While Orly has written plenty, the lack of detail of what she imagines to be a RICO statement, makes it unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss]

The court is further reminded that Mississippi is a notice pleading state and all that is required is that Defendants be placed on notice about which Plaintiff complains. Given the fact that Defendants have filed an answer and the pending motion there is no question that they are intimately familiar with the factual allegations.

[NBC: Again, the defendants cannot be presumed to understand what Orly is claiming unless she fully claims it. The fact that they filed an answer does not provide support that her pleading is sufficient. A RICO statement has strict requirements that cannot be waived because Orly believes that the defendants are ‘intimately familiar with the factual allegations’. Orly, at best, has made some wide ranging but poorly supported claims about the RICO nature.

From Hawaii’s response

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not plead specific facts against the Hawaii Defendants, but instead contains only conclusory allegations and recitation of the elements necessary to establish a RICO claim—the same being insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bell At!. Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)

In fact, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Hawaiian defendants under RICO

Under RICO, a civil action “against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.” 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a). Contrary to some courts, the Fifth Circuit and the language of the statute itself simply do not support the contention that § 1965(a) provides for nationwide service of process. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit and various other district courts have specifically held that the language of § 1965(a) “requires that a defendant be conducting business in the forum.” Caldwell, 811 F.2d at 918 (citing Miller Brewing Co. v. Landau, 616 F. Supp. 1285, 1288 (D.C. Wis. 1985); Donovan v. Mazzola, 606 F. Supp. 119 (D.C. Cal. 1984); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., 535 F. Supp. 1125, 1133 (D. Mass. 1982)).



Taitz’s apparent contention that compliance with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8 inoculates her from a motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF 48 at 4-5) is flatly wrong. First, “[t]o the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud, the plaintiff must meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements.” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6, reconsideration denied, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2010); see also, e.g., Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 9 (b) applies to RICO claims resting on allegations of fraud). Moreover, even if Rule 8 did apply, Taitz “‘confuses form with substance. Rule 8(a)(2) specifies the conditions of the formal adequacy of a pleading. It does not specify the conditions of its substantive adequacy, that is, its legal merit.’” Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 201 F. App’x 988, 990 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original), quoting Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041 (7th Cir.1999). As such, Taitz cannot survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings by resting on the allegations in her complaint, but must provide (applicable)
legal authority to support her claims. Kirksey, 168 F.3d at 1041.



In addition to supporting facts, Plaintiff specifies the documents challenged as well as the nature of the challenge. Plaintiff further identifies those responsible for the illicit conduct.

For example, the fact that Obama’s application for ACA through Washington DC exchange due to the fact that the program could not verify his identity based on the IDs provided, makes RICO allegations plausible, if not for RICO conspiracy to create fabricated IDs and cover it up, Washington DC Exchange would be able to confirm Obama’s identity.

[NBC: There are far more likely explanations for the failure of the ACA software to verify our Presidents information.]


1. In their reply Plaintiffs made a false statement of fact where they alleged they have already proven lack of standing by plaintiffs. This is false and standing was proven by the plaintiffs:

a. Plaintiff Fedorka is a resident of MS and a registered voter in Mississippi.

[NBC: The defendants claim lack of standing on the RICO claim. Orly is attacking a strawman.]

b. Plaintiffs MacLeran, Lax and Roth were Presidential candidates in 2012 election registered with the Federal Elections Commission. In July of 2013 this court has announced that Defense attorney, Mr. Begley, made an unsolicited communication with the chambers seeking to provide a supplemental brief with a supplemental case. This court allowed Defense to provide this court with the brief and defense provided this court with the ruling in Grinols et al v Electoral College et al 13-16359 and Plaintiffs responded. In Grinols, the case that the defendants, themselves, submitted to this court, Presiding Judge, Hon Morrison England found that Presidential Candidate Keith Judd had standing to sue defendants Secretary of State of California, Governor of California, Barack Obama (in his capacity as a candidate), US Congress and electoral college for declaratory and injunctive relief that Obama is not eligible as a candidate for President. Judge England found this, even though Keith Judd never ran in the state of CA and, at the time the case was filed, Judd was incarcerated and could not immediately assume office, even if he was elected. Plaintiffs also provided the court with the precedents of Cleaver v Jordan California Supreme Court minutes, Sep. 26, 1968, ease no. 7838 and Fulani v Hogsett 917 F 2d 1028, both cases found standing for Presidential candidates.

Further, in response to the submission by the defense, Taitz submitted a response with a precedent Peace and Freedom party, Peta Lindsey, Richard Becker v Debra Bowen, Secretary of State of California 12-cv-00853 USDC EDCA (Exhibit 1) where US District Court found standing for all plaintiffs to challenge the decision by the Secretary of State of California. While Lindsey was a candidate, her co-plaintiff, Richard Becker was just a citizen, who joined Lindsey. In Lindsey the USDC for the Eastern District of California found that the federal court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory and injunctive relief in regards to constitutional eligibility of a candidate for President. The court did not find that it is up to Congress to decide on this issue. This decision is consistent with aforementioned Fulani v Hogsett from the Seventh Circuit and Cleaver v Jordan. Further, Plaintiffs provided this court with the decision from the Administrative Court of Georgia, where the court found both the jurisdiction and standing for citizens and candidates to challenge legitimacy of the candidate for president and found that the court had jurisdiction to hear the challenge Farrar, MacLaren, Roth, Lax, et al v Mama OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215 t 36-60-MALIHI. MacLeran, Roth and Lax are the same Presidential candidates who were plaintiffs in Farrar and who were found to have standing. In Farrar administrative court had limited jurisdiction and discovery could not be conducted and the court did not fmd sufficient evidence without discovery. Further, on appeal, the Superior Court found that the case was not ripe, as Obama was not nominated yet. USDC court of MS is a court that has jurisdiction to conduct discovery and depositions, and nomination of Obama already took place, as such there are no more hurdles in relation to standing and jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiffs renewed their complaint after Obama was nominated and on October 12, 2012 Sam Begley, attorney for the Democratic Party, as well as Obama, Pelosi and Obama for America responded with his “go away letter”, whereby his clients, particularly Democratic Party of MS refused to do its due diligence and fulfill its’ statutory obligation to vet the candidate, and chose to be complicit in RICO and in the cover up of forgery in Obama’s IDs. (ECF 50-1)

Further, Taitz provided a 40 page RICO statement which shows that not only she has standing, but that she satisfied all elements for a RICO claim, 1) Conducting of; 2) enterprise; 3) through pattern; 4) of racketeering action; and, if a private plaintiff 5) injury to plaintiff’s business or property, fully describing a RICO conspiracy, parties and her damages, specifically damages to her law practice, her dental practice, vandalism and destruction of her web sites, loss of donations due to destruction of web sites, vandalism of her e-mail accounts, loss of tenants, loss of rent, loss of customers.

[NBC: Orly fails again to address the objections raised by the defendants. Handwaving is not a RICO claim, let alone, lack of specificity]

2.In relation to Hawaiian defendants Plaintiffs have proven that this court has jurisdiction in this case, as Hawaiian defendants have availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this court by knowingly certifying a flagrant forgery as a true and correct copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate as they knew that this forgery will be the basis for fraud committed by Obama in Mississippi and other states and this fraud and forgery will be used by Obama to run for President while asserting his identity, citizenship and eligibility for office based on aforementioned fabricated birth certificate.

[NBC: Again ignoring the precedents cited by the defendants.]

Further, in opposition to Motion to dismiss by HI defendants, plaintiffs have already fully briefed the precedents showing that if the court has jurisdiction over one of RICO defendants, then it has jurisdiction over all of RICO co-conspirators. In its reply to opposition to motion to dismiss, HI defendants could not find any law or precedent which would negate this and would show that the court does not have jurisdiction over Hawaiian defendants. Of course, Democratic party of MS and Secretary of State removed the case to this court and are barred from asserting any jurisdiction challenges. If the court has jurisdiction over Democratic party of MS, it has jurisdiction over all of RICO co-conspirators, including HI defendants.

[NBC: Orly must have missed the following

Contrary to some courts, the Fifth Circuit and the language of the statute itself simply do not support the contention that § 1965(a) provides for nationwide service of process. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit and various other district courts have specifically held that the language of § 1965(a) “requires that a defendant be conducting business in the forum.” Caldwell, 811 F.2d at 918 (citing Miller Brewing Co. v. Landau, 616 F. Supp. 1285, 1288 (D.C. Wis. 1985); Donovan v. Mazzola, 606 F. Supp. 119 (D.C. Cal. 1984); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., 535 F. Supp. 1125, 1133 (D. Mass. 1982)).



3. Plaintiffs’ First Amended complaint pled specific facts and not conclusory statements in relation to Hawaiian defendants, but a specific pleading of complicity in a RICO scheme where Hawaiian defendants Fuddy and Onaka acted with malice and certified as genuine a flagrant forgery, which was used as proof of Obama’s legitimacy for office and was posted on on April 27, 2011. Further, Plaintiffs submitted with the complaint multiple affidavits from experts, which demonstrated that indeed defendants Onaka and Fuddy certified forged documents. (ECR 65 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss). This is sufficient to overcome Motion to Dismiss on the pleadings and move to discovery. Further, Plaintiffs have already shown that government officials can form a malicious intent and can be sued in RICO and were successfully sued in RICO, as in United States v Raymond KasamaLor et al D 837 F.2d F.2d 1509 the whole police department, police chief and attorneys for the police department were successfully sued in RICO, additionally Fuddy and Onaka acted with malice to undermine the very agency, where they worked by certifying flagrant forgeries and presenting them as true and correct copies of original documents.
Further, Onaka and Fuddy were sued as individuals, however even if the court were to see them not as individuals, but as governmental employees, assertion by the defense that they cannot be sued in civil RICO is flagrantly wrong. According to 8 Bus. & Corn. Litig. Fed. as. § 96:3 (3d ed.) Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts 3d American Bar Association Section of Litigation Database updated November 2013, governmental entities cannot form a malicious intent, however individual employees can form a malicious intend and can be sued in RICO:

“Chapter 96. RICO by Jerold S. Solovy and R. Douglas Rees1

[ The underlined text comes almost verbatim from the above mentioned document.]

II. Elements Common to all Civil Rico Actions § 96:3. The culpable “person”

RICO requires “a person” who violated or conspired to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c). As discussed in Part IV, in cases arising under § 1962(c), the culpable person must be separate from the enterprise. If the defendant does not manage or operate a separate enterprise, a § 1962(c) claim will fail.
Section 1961(3) defines a culpable “person” as an “entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.” Ironically, the Second Circuit has held that an organized crime “family” is not a “person” subject to suit under subsections 1964(a) or (c) (though it could be an association-in-fact enterprise that is used by a culpable person to commit racketeering). The court concluded that an illegal organization does not fall within the statutory definition because it is not capable of holding an interest in property. The Second Circuit otherwise has held that an unincorporated association may be a RICO “person.”

Government entities generally cannot be liable under RICO because they are incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent to violate the statute. For example, the Sixth Circuit has held that counties are not persons because they lack “the capability to form the mens rea requisite to the commission of the predicate acts (internal quotes omitted).” Similarly, the Third Circuit has acknowledged that a municipal corporation cannot be liable under RICO, although the court based its holding on the conclusion that RICO’s “mandatory award” of treble damages serves a “punitive purpose” which does not apply to public bodies. Courts have used the same reasoning to dismiss RICO claims against public school boards. Note that although a government entity may not be capable of formulating the specific intent to violate RICO, a RICO claim may in some circumstances be appropriate against individual government employees who perpetrate predicate acts. Jund v. Town of Hempstead, 941 F.2d 1271, 1282, R.I.C.O. Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) P 7799 (2c1 Cir. 19911 LaFlambov v. Landek, 587 F. SUPP. 2d 914, R.I.C.O. Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) P 11595 (N.D. III. 2008).
In Flamboy USDC for the ND of IL found that governmental officials can be held liable in RICO. In Flamboy the court writes: “Plaintiff, for example, asserts that the Village Defendants acted “for the personal, pecuniary, and political benefit of themselves and others who supported defendant Landek.” (R. 299-1, Fourth Am. Compl. 41111 16, 18.) In addition, public officials can be held individually liable for actions taken while holding public office and/or misuse of their public office. See, e.a., United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 696 (7th Cir.2007) (affirming RICO conviction of former Illinois governor based on activities defendant was serving as Illinois Secretary of State and Governor); United States v. Emond, 935 F.2d 1511, 1512 (7th Cir.1991) (affirming RICO conviction of village manager who “used his official position as Streamwood’s village *938 manager to extort money from persons with business before the village government.”)

Not only an individual employee can be a defendant in RICO, the court should give the plaintiffs a leave of court to amend the complaint and name the estate of the deceased Defendant Fuddy as a defendant in RICO. Bank of Northern Illinois v. Nugent, 223 III. ADP. 3c1 1, 165 III. Dec. 514, 584 N.E.2d 948, 958, R.I.C.O. Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) P 7924 (2d Dist. 1991) (an estate, through its executor, may be a “person” under RICO). In Bank of Northern Illinois the court of Appeals found that the District Court Judge abused his discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint and name the estate of the deceased RICO defendant as a new defendant in the case upon the death of the party.

4. Hawaiian defendants by and through their attorney, Walter W. Dukes, engaged in clear character defamation of the plaintiffs accusing plaintiffs of “fraudulent misrepresentations”.

[NBC: Another hilarious reading comprehension failure. The Attorney stated

d)    Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claims should be dismissed due to a failure to plead the same with the degree of particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;6 and

Referring to Orly making claims of fraudulent misrepresentation that are not pled with sufficient peculiarity.


Other parties incorporated allegations by Hawaiian defendants by reference. Plaintiffs are asking this court to sanction defendants and their attorneys for defamation of character of Plaintiffs. Defendants did not provide a scintilla of evidence which would show that Plaintiffs engaged in any fraud and in any fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs provided all true and correct information which was supported by sworn affidavits of law enforcement officers and experts. Defendants do not like the truth and are attempting character assassination by bullying and defamation.

5. Plaintiffs repeatedly properly served the defendants with the service of process. Further, even if the service of process was not perfected, and it was, based on the precedent Candido v. District of Columbia USDC. June 22, 2007 242 F.R.D. 151 2007 WL 1793360 the court cannot use this as a basis for dismissal and should allow the plaintiffs to perfect the service of process and file with the court proof that the service of process was perfected. In Candido the court ruled that …Although plaintiff failed to effect service of process on defendant, the court would direct plaintiff to perfect service and then file with the court.

[NBC: Candido also observes that one can raise the issue once the 120 days have passed and indeed, that is what Hawaii did.]

Appropriate affidavits demonstrating that proper service was achieved, rather than grant defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process: dismissing the plaintiffs case would potentially subvert justice and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, but would not prejudice defendant Civ.Proc.Rule 4(m). 28 U.S.C.A…,
Here, Hawailan defendants were served by process server Larry Fenton at their place of work, at the
Department of Health and through Attorney General of Hawaii at the office of the Attorney General. Department of Health of Hawaii and office of Attorney General of Hawaii does not allow process servers to enter the building pass the clerk at the entrance, who accepts all the documents, logs them and forwards to employees. Process server was prevented from going inside and serving directly, which means that either aforementioned employees evade service of process or waive the requirement to be served directly and accept service through the clerk-receptionist. Clearly the clerk forwarded the pleadings and summons to the defendants, as they received the pleadings and Attorney General of HI retained Mr. Dukes to represent them. Plaintiffs satisfied the requirement of the notice jurisdiction and defendants received notice of the legal action.

Additionally, Taitz was in correspondence with Deputy AG of HI Nagamine at the time the case was filed, as she was facing Nagamine in the state court of Hawaii in a legal action challenging the same defendants, Fuddy and Onaka. Nagamine provided Taitz with her e-mail address for correspondence and Taitz e-mailed her the First Amended complaint on April 15,2012 the moment Fuddy and Onaka were joined as defendants in RICO action . State Judge on the case, Judge Coleman, sought correspondence via e-mails. Before Taitz could serve HI defendants with summons from the state court, the case was removed to the Federal court.

When jurisdiction of Federal court was confirmed by this court, Taitz served Onaka and Fuddy at the Department of Health and at the office of Attorney General. As stated, Hawaiian defendants were properly served, and even if the court were to decide that the service needs to be perfected, based on a the precedent of Candido this is not a justification for dismissal, but only justification for a request to perfect service.

[NBC: The court may decide that Orly should be given more time but she has not requested an extension so the court has no choice..]

7. Defense was obligated to report death of Fuddy. Defense is claiming that Fuddy was sued as a governmental official. As such they were obligated under Federal Rules of Civil Rule 25 procedure to notify the court and seek amendment of the pleading and substitution of the party with the name of the new Director of Health. They did not comply with the rules.

Rule 25. Substitution of Parties
(a) Death.
(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed
(2) Continuation Among the Remaining Parties. After a party’s death, if the right sought to be enforced survives only to or against the remaining parties, the action does not abate, but proceeds in favor of or against the remaining parties. The death should be noted on the record.
(3) Service. A motion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing, must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4. A statement noting death must be served in the same manner. Service may be made in any judicial district.
(b) Incompetency. If a party becomes incompetent, the court may, on motion, permit the action to be continued by or against the party’s representative. The motion must be served as provided in Rule 25(a)(3).
(c) Transfer of Interest. If an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. The motion must be served as provided in Rule 25(a)(3).

(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office. An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name, but any misnomer not affecting the patties’ substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.

If defense claims that defendants were served in their official capacity, Fuddy’s attorney was obligated to effectuate substitution and provide the name of the official substituting Fuddy, he did not do that.

[NBC: Orly cites rule 25(d) but still argues against it?… Hilarious]

8. Further, counsel for defendant Fuddy was obligated to notify the court and the plaintiffs of Fuddy’s death and probate information. This was not done. The court and all the parties were entitled to know about Fuddy’s death. As stated previously Bank of Northern Illinois v. Nugent, 223 III. APO. 3d 1, 165 III. Dec. 514, 584 N.E.20 948, 958, R.I.C.O. Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) P 7924 (2c1 Dist. 1991) (an estate, through its executor, may be a “person” under RICO). In Bank of Northern Illinois the court of Appeals found that the District Court Judge abused his discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint and name the estate of the deceased RICO defendant as a new defendant in the case upon the death of the party.
Aditionally, often individuals, who committed crimes, confess to those crimes in their wills. The parties in this case are entitled to see the will and probate documents. The will might reveal that not only that Fuddy was served with the proceedings, as attested to by the process servers, but that she did not want to contest these proceedings, that she knew that Obama’s IDs were indeed forgeries. The will might reveal the reason, why after prior director of Health, Dr. Pallafox, resigned, (believed due to his unwillingness to take part in certification of a forgery), was then Loretta Fuddy, the first non-doctor, appointed to this position, why was she complicit in this RICO.

[NBC: Pure speculation with no legal value]

For example, January 22, 2014 article in American Thinker, authored by Criminology Professor, Dr. Jason Kissner, (Exhibit 2) revealed that Loretta Fuddy was the National Chair of Subud -USA, a small Indonesian based Muslim cult, which included Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, a cult which encourages changes of name. This could explain Fuddy’s willingness to cover up Obama’s lack of valid IDs and her silence regarding Obama’s legal names of Soetoro and Soebarkah, as Fuddy, herself, used different names. She maintained 2 FB accounts: one under the name Loretta Fuddy and one under the name Deliana Anton (Deliana is her middle name, Anton is her mother’s maiden name). Further, death of a party would entitle the plaintiffs to more of her records, which would shed light on this RICO conspiracy and aid in adjudication of this case. All of the above shows that Fuddy’s death was a material fact that affects the case and should have been provided to the court by Fuddy’s attorneys.

[NBC: Rule 25…. The end]

9. Defense misrepresents importance of Taitz v Colvin, as it clearly goes to plausibility of the complaint. In the case at hand Michael Astrue, former Commissioner of Social Security is listed as one of RICO defendants due to the fact that Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 used by Obama failed both E-Verify and SSNVS and was traced to another individual, Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel, born in 1890. In Colvin Taitz sought SS-5, application to this SSN by Harry Bounel. Carolyn Colvin is an acting Commissioner of Social Security, she replaced Michael Astrue, who left this position. Defense filed a motion to dismiss claiming that they do not have any records for Bounel, that he probably never applied for SSN. Taitz responded by forwarding to the court November 16, 2012 letter from SSA, where the same SSA FOIA officer admitted that SSA has records for Harry Bounel, but cannot provide them due to reasons of privacy. Taitz argued that defense defrauded the court in their allegation that they do not have records and that they violated SSA “120 year rule” which obligated SSA to release records of individuals born 120 years earlier, that those records do not fall into privacy exemption. In Colvin Judge Hollander did not give the defendant a quick dismissal, but rather noted that Plaintiff might be correct in her assertion that SSA did not do a proper search: “In regard to the ailequacy of the search, plaintiff’s arguments that the SSA has failed to meet its obligations under the FOIA may have merit. When the adequacy of a search is challenged, an agency may demonstrate the adequacy of its search by submitting an affidavit that is “reasonably detailed, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched so as to give the requesting party an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search.” Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1246-47 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, defendant has offered the Declaration of Dawn S. Wiggins, who avers, ECF 12-2 ¶ 6: “SSA conducted a search of the Numident for a record that matched the information provided by Plaintiff but could not locate a record for Mr. Bounel.” Wiggins did not explain the manner in which the search was conducted, whether multiple searches were conducted using different combinations of the information provided by plaintiff (to ensure that a minor discrepancy in the information submitted by plaintiff did not sabotage the search), or any other details related to the thoroughness of her search.” id

[NBC: The SSA has already admitted that the information about the requested SSN cannot be released because the owner is still living. President Obama….]

So, Taitz v Colvin is integrally related to the case at hand, as the moment the SS-5, Social Security application for xxx-xx.-4425 is revealed, showing that sitting US President is indeed using a stolen Social Security number, it proves RICO without a shadow of a doubt. While defendants were submitting their oppositions, there was further development in Taitz v Colvin. Defense submitted a third amended affidavit of the same FOIA officer Dawn Wiggins, who de facto admitted that she never searched for the record that was requested and that she was obligated to provide. Wiggins was obligated to search for SS-5, the actual paper application for SSN by Bounel, she never searched for it. She admitted that she only looked in Numident, which is an electronic database, which created by data entry, has multiple errors and can be changed at any time. Computer records can be erased or created on a whim For that reason 120 year rule specifically states that SS-5 has to be provided, not numident, as original paper records can be checked for authenticity, for aging of paper and ink and similarity to other records created at the same time. This is the reason discovery in the case at hand is so important, as it will allow the plaintiffs to examine alleged original birth certificate of Obama, which allegedly exists and other original records. Plaintiff Taitz will be submitting her response in Colvin shortly after submitting this response in this case at hand.

10. As stated, a number of people with knowledge of Obama’s bogus IDs and particulars of his life were either assassinated or died under suspicious circumstances, which shows a modus operandi and which is a significant factor weighing in favor of denying a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, goes to plausibility of allegations and weighs in favor of starting the discovery. The Courts have uniformly held the standard applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)) is the same as is applicable as a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(bX6). Warnock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, 2008 WL 4594129, 3,citing Doe v. Myspace, Inc., 528 F.3dd 413, 41* (5* Cir. 2008) In evaluating the pleading the analysis is focused on whether, “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. (Ibid, citing Hughes v. The Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420.

[NBC: Which means that the court has no choice but to dismiss]

11. Notification regarding Obama’s inability to establish his identity through the national database does not relate only to Obama, it relates to all the defendants, who are a part of RICO conspiracy. Claims by the defense that new evidence in regards to Washington DC Health exchange/ ACA relates only to Defendant Obama is absolutely wrong.

The claim of RICO states that all the defendants were acting in concert, in perpetrating the same RICO of committing fraud, forgery, uttering of forged/falsified IDs for Barack Obama, that were used to defraud the nation. Defendants Fuddy and Onaka were participants of this RICO in that they certified a flagrant forgery as a true and correct copy of the genuine birth certificate for Barack Obama, which was allegedly signed by Stanley —Ann Dunham Mama on August 7, 1961 and signed by Dr. David Sinclair and Registrar Verna Lee on August 8, 1961. This birth certificate was proven to be a forgery by multiple experts and their sworn affidavits were provided to this court. Further, this certification of the flagrant forgery was placed on World Wide web, on and this fraudulent certification of forgery was transmitted and republished all over the world. Further, defendant Obama posted on the same his tax returns, did not flatten the PDF file and the full Social Security that he is using became available and it failed both E-Verify and SSNVS, which showed that he is using a Social Security number that was not assigned to him. Plaintiffs also provided a sworn affidavit of a Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations unit of the US Coast Guard, which stated that Obama’s alleged Selective Service Registration is a forge”, containing a fabricated USPS cancellation stamp. Democratic Party of MS received all of this evidence from Taitz timely before the 2012 Presidential primary ton Democratic Party of MS was and is complicit in the cover up of all of this evidence. Secretary of State of MS received evidence of falsified records of Obama back in 2008 produced in pleadings by retired MS Judge James Bell, who represented 25 electors from all over the nation. Secretary of State placed Obama on the ballot and certified election results without any due diligence to investigate evidence of forgery. As a result of multiple publications by Obama of his fabricated birth certificate and his other IDs and his claims of eligibility, which were televised, sent via US mail and e-mails in campaign publications to all the plaintiffs and to every citizen of this country, fabricated IDs were entered into the stream of the interstate commerce.

As a result of this RICO conspiracy by the defendants Barack Obama was able to raise 2 billion dollars for his campaign, which was conducted fraudulently with his assertion of eligibility, citizenship and identity based on fabricated IDs and documents supplied by co-conspirators and due to the cover up of other co-conspirators. Two billion dollars raised by Obama with the aid of RICO co-conspirators, is the RICO income, which was used not only to usurp the US Presidency, but to attack the plaintiffs and deprive them of livelihood.

Plaintiffs, who were candidates for president: Tom MacLeran, Laurie Roth and Leah Lax lost their potential position and income as a result of RICO enterprise. The courts held that RICO statutes to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose. In other words the statute is to be given expansive interpretation as is was conceived as a tool to fight crime. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & lndem. Co. (2008) 553 U.S. 639, 128 S.Ct. 2131; 170 L.Ed.2d 1012. In Bridge the court held that even loss of potential earnings as a result of RICO conspiracy will suffice. It further found that the plaintiffs do not have to show knowledge of the conspiracy or reliance on the conspiracy, only damages, even potential damages have to flow from the conspiracy. “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to [a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of the Act’s criminal prohibitions. § 1964(c). The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated *642 on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that a showing of first party reliance is not required, we affirm. “Justice Thomas id

Plaintiff Taitz is a civil rights leader and a civil rights attorney who was on the forefront of the investigation of this RICO conspiracy. She was the Woodward and Bernstein of this modem version of the Watergate and she represented members of the US military and others challenging Barack Obama and his legitimacy. As a result she was targeted by members of this RICO conspiracy and suffered estimated damages of over half a million dollars.

[NBC: Orly is only a Woodward/Bernstein in her own fantasies.]

In retaliation against Taitz John Doe members of the RICO conspiracy caused damage to her car, vandalized her car, disconnected emissions hose and the car could catch fire or explode. Her web sites and e-mail accounts were repeatedly hacked, vandalized and destroyed. Members of the RICO conspiracy posted all over the Internet articles with the search phrase “Orly Taitz disbarred”. Taitz was never disbarred, she was never suspended, she was never reprimanded by the bar. She has a clean record. These fraudulent statements were placed all over the Internet in order to prevent her from making a living and prevent her from being able to obtain clients and associations with other attorneys, as a result she lost livelihood. Further, vandalism of her web sites caused loss of donations which were connected to pay.pal buttons on her web sites. Further, Taitz is both an attorney and a licensed Doctor of dental Surgery.

Fraudulent statements were placed on the internet alleging that she lost her dental license. Taitz never lost her dental license and that affected her dental practice. Dental insurances were contacted and they were urged to drop Taitz from the panel as a doctor-provider of these insurances and those insurances were told that she is inciting mutiny against the president, even though she never incited mutiny. She subleased premises to other tenants. These tenants were contacted and were intimidated and urged to leave premises because Taitz allegedly incited mutiny. As a result Taitz lost tenants. Supreme Court in Bridges affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals”. It first concluded that [s]tanding is not a problem in this suit because respondents suffered a “real injury “when they lost the valuable chance to acquire more liens, and because that injury can be redressed by damages” id. Here Taitz lost a valuable chance of making a living due to this RICO conspiracy and fraud committed by members of the RICO conspiracy.

[NBC: Orly still fails to address the objections raised by the defendants as to standing.]

So the fact that a national database was not able to confirm Obama’s identity, as well as other material facts provided, is an important evidence proving RICO. this evidence relates not only to Obama, but to all RICO co-conspirators, as it shows that as a result of their concerted actions a person without a valid ID won the election, raised 2 billion dollars and caused aforementioned damages to the plaintiffs.


1. In light of the fact that in its motion for verdict on the pleadings the defense argued that the case was not ripe and Obama was not a candidate yet, as the complaint was filed before the democratic nominating convention and in light of the fact that Plaintiffs submitted yet another challenge to Obama after the nominating convention and this challenge was rebuffed by the attorney for the Democratic Party Begley with “go away” letter, the case became ripe.

2. Death of defendant Fuddy is a material fact. Fuddy died in a small plane accident, which is still investigated by the NTSB. Taitz provided a list of individuals who had knowledge of forgery in Obama’s IDs or fraudulent misrepresentation relating to his biography, IDs or sexual orientation. All of these individuals were either assassinated or died under suspicious circumstances. There is a high likelihood that death of Fuddy was a result of the sabotage of the plane and murder of Fuddy and attempted murder of Deputy Director Keith Yamamoto, both of whom were involved in certification of a flagrant forgery as a true and correct copy of Obama’s allegedly existing birth certificate. This evidence shows that, indeed, there is a need to lift the stay on discovery and proceed with discovery in this case. Further, there is a high likelihood that lives of other parties in this case are at risk as long as fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs is covered up and not adjudicated. This is material to the issue of the RICO cause of action, as well as request by the plaintiff Taitz for this court to forward evidence of criminal offenses against the criminal laws of the US to the Federal Grand Jury or for the court to issue a writ of Mandamus to the US attorney to do the same, per precedent In the Matter of In re GRAND JURY APPLICATION. No. 85 Civ. 2235 (VLB) US DC for the SD of NY or seek by a request to the Chief Judge of the Circuit to impanel a Special Grand Jury under PUBLIC LAW 91-452 91ST CONGRESS I.R.S. October 15, 1970 1970-2 C.B. 363 1970 WI. 123254

…”(a) In addition to such other grand juries as shall be called from time to time, each district court which is located in a judicial district containing more than four million Inhabitants or in which the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, certifies in writing to the chief judge of the district that in his judgment a special grand jury is necessary because of criminal activity in the district shall order a special grand jury to be summoned at least once in each period of eighteen months”

3. As the case was filed two years ago plaintiffs suffered additional damages due to this RICO conspiracy and these damages will continue until the stay of discovery is lifted, proper discovery is done and the case is litigated.

4. Plaintiffs are seeking sanctions against defendants and their attorneys who in their pleadings defamed the plaintiffs calling true statements to be “fraudulent misrepresentations”. Defendants did not provide a scintilla of proof that anything stated by the plaintiffs is fraudulent or misrepresentation.

5. Issue of “Virgil Byrd” statements, brought up by the court itself, not by Taitz, and issue of forgery in Obama’s IDs, as well as the issue of submittal of a new cleaned up forgery of Obama’s birth certificate, filed by the defense with this court, represent violations of criminal laws which are sufficient for referral by this court under 18 USC 3332 for investigation by the Grand Jury and/or for a Writ of Mandamus by this court to the US Attorney to submit the matter to the Grand Jury based on precedent of In the Matter of In re GRAND JURY APPLICATION 617 F.Supp. 199 USDC SD of NY No. 85 Civ. 2235 (VLB).

[NBC: As I outlined elsewhere, Orly lacks standing to enforce such an action through a court.]