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.

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.)

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:

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.

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

BREAKING UPDATE: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DENIES Detectives Are Working On Criminal Ancillary Investigation Related To Obama Birth Certificate Probe

So Mr Zullo, any explanations?….

Earlier this afternoon, Arizona’s Politics received confirmation from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that it had two detectives working on a criminal investigation related to the 2 1/2-year long probe into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. A spokesperson for Sheriff Joe Arpaio now tells Arizona’s Politics that his information was INCORRECT, and that birth certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo “was incorrect”.

MCSO Lt. Brandon Jones states that he “was misinformed” when he had confirmed the information earlier. He now states that “The detectives are not working on anything regarding the birth certificate. Not even surrounding. Mr Zullo was incorrect, they are working on other sensitive cases not even related.”

More at…. http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/20 … ounty.html

PS: Note the Mr Zullo… Not ‘lieutenant’ or any other inflated descriptions. At least the spokesperson knows that posse members are not law enforcement officers under Arizona statute.

Dr C – Flash: Arpaio has 2 full-time detectives investigating Obama! (or not!)

Oh poor Zullo. He tries so hard.

Read more here

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

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

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

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

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

Sharon and disinformation – Exploring the facts

At the Post and Email, Sharon makes the following observations:

Sharon

In September 2011, a member of The Fogbow, “nbc,” reportedly procured documents from Huff’s trial for “Jack,” aka “Jack Ryan,” whose real name is believed to be Bob Haggard.  “NBC” follows the statements of Walter Fitzpatrick, Zullo and The Post & Email closely, then attempts to discredit them via disinformation.

Perhaps Sharon is not familiar with the fact that trial documents are available for download? Jack Ryan has been doing a great job at collecting the relevant documents for the many court cases involving birthers, allowing everyone to understand what is happening at these trials. He provides a great service to anyone interested in educating himself as to the details and arguments raised in the many cases that have been brought across our Nation. As to ‘disinformation’, I have yet to hear why the information I provide was flawed in any manner or form. I am always open to revise my position based on evidence.

Freeman and Sovereigns rebutted

A great legal document by a Judge in Canada who took the time to research and document the follies of the Sovereign movement.

It’s already being used by other courts.

The document outlines how ‘oath of office’ and bonds are seen as relevant ways of attacking the legitimacy of the court. That an a failure to understand who is the accuser in a criminal proceeding. Sounds familiar 😉

28 USC 1915 – In Forma Pauperis

Some have claimed that the Court’s reliance on 28 USC 1915 is inappropriate when it does not involve a prisoner. However, the facts are that the courts have long since addressed this.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The statute requires that a person seeking in forma pauperis status submit an affidavit including a statement of his or her assets. While the statute refers to “all assets such prisoner possesses,” courts have “reviewed the legislative history . . ., applied the basic axioms of statutory interpretation, and used a little common sense” to find that Congress’s use of the word “prisoner” in this provision was a typographical error.

Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 275 (6th Cir. 1997), quoted in Jones v. N. Atl. Treaty Org.

, 1998 WL 136511, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Following Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Floyd, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applies the affidavit requirement to nonprisoner litigants. Jones , 1998 WL 136511, at *1.

Source

Sharon – Obots discrediting Walt?

Sharon writes:

The Obots have watched and regularly written about Fitzpatrick’s blog posts in an attempt to discredit him as they have with Zullo’s investigation of the forgery.

Source: The Post Email

True, as to Zullo: I have shown how the facts do not line up with the fiction. So I would not call it a mere attempt, but rather a successful rebuttal. As to Walt, I leave the discrediting up to himself, I focus on exploring the validity of his claims, many of which I have found to be wanting.

Walt not helping out Darren

In 2010, Walt wrote the following:

Therein was created the necessity and authority to conduct PETTWAY’s Citizen arrest.  Intent to carry out a series of Citizens’ arrest was made in writing to local law enforcement in early March 2010 (click here).

Darren Huff was traveling to Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 in support of PETTWAY’s Citizens’ arrest. Darren recognized PETTWAY’s obstruction had to be overcome in order to advance the Treason complaint naming SOETORO-OBAMA.

In support of Pettway’s citizens’ arrest… Walt is providing the necessary support for the government’s argument that Darren had the intention of getting involved in what likely would have been a criminal act.

12-5581 US v Huff – Fleeting references to Walt

Discussing if Darren did more than the minimal planning, when he crossed the State line with with his weapons, the US Attorney General argues:

Well, I think that, when you look at all evidence in the record there was testimony that he had been planning this, this take-over of Madisonville Courthouse for weeks. That he had gone up to Madisonville, he consulted with Fitzpatrick, he had sent text messages back saying ‘no we are not committing citizen’s arrests today’, he is coordinating with a bunch of other individuals. I believe that given all the evidence in the record..

No statements that Fitzpatrick was the leader of a group of militia, planning an armed assault. Perhaps Walt would like to review the evidence?

Walt is at best a fleeting mention. Did I miss something?

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Piling on..

Hahaha…

Document Number: 102

Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Barak Hussein Obama, Obama for America, Nanci Pelosi to [100] Response in Opposition, filed by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, [98] Response in Opposition, filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

Document Number: 103

Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Secretary of State of Mississippi to [100] Response in Opposition, filed by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka (Matheny, Justin)

Vogt – Affidavits submitted to Judges

[T]hree (3) federal judges have acknowledge receipt of Doug’s Affidavit. Two of them have forwarded the affidavit to their respective United States Attorneys. The third wrote back stating: “I was very impressed by the letter and attachments you sent to me. I do not dismiss the allegations you make as untrue.” The letter continued with the commitment to submit Doug’s affidavit to the Grand Jury for their consideration. So like a modern-day Diogenes, perhaps we have found one honest federal district court judge.

The letter, which is heavily redacted does not show how the statement was continued. Wake me up when the Judge has really forwarded the affidavit…