PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARTHUR NAKAZATO’S ACTION OF AUGUST 6, 2009 and MOTION FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CDCA L.R. 72-2.1:
NO TRANSFER NOR CONSENT NOR ORDER OF REFERENCE AUTHORIZED THIS MAGISTRATE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER OR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE—MOTION TO RECUSE 28 U.S.C. §455(a)
Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order of August 6, 2009, is a nullity without lawful force or effect because it was entered without any prior transfer nor order of reference, nor by the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are concerned, and first and foremost generally object to Judge Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 order (shown as Document 35) in “Case: 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN As of: 08/17/2009 06:55 PM PDT” because Judge Nakazato’s hyper-formalistic order appears to be inconsistent with Judge David O. Carter’s oral assurances in court on July 13, 2009, that this case would be allowed to proceed on the merits without undue regard to technicalities.
The motion submitted was extremely important and the technicalities enumerated seem unworthy. The first violations of the local rules which Judge Nakazato listed was the form of the “Notice of Motion” required by Central District of California L.R. 6-1 and L.R. 7-4: Plaintiffs did not check their calendars to select which Monday was their Motion day. While omission was a fair criticism on the Magistrate Judge’s part, L.R. 7-4 states that “the court MAY decline to consider a motion unless it meets to requirements of L.R. 7-4-7-8.” In the context of this case, where none of the Defendants had actually appeared or answered as of yet, and in which Judge Carter had previously set hearings sua sponte without reference to the “Notice of Motion” rule or schedule, Judge Nakazato’s UNAUTHORIZED order striking the Plaintiffs’ Motion seems unduly severe and prejudicial.
In regard to L.R. Rule 11-3.3 regarding form and format: pagination, Plaintiffs submit that their failure to paginate was a printing error, and that in fact they were unaware that their motion had no numbers until this was pointed out by the Court, because on their computer screen, the Motion was fully compliant with: “L.R. 11-3.3 Pagination. All documents shall be numbered consecutively at the bottom of each page.” More perplexing, however, is Judge Nakazato’s reference to Rule 11-3.6: “L.R. 11-3.6 Spacing . The typing or printing on the document shall be double spaced, including citations and quotations.”
Even after carefully examining the three subparts of L.R. 11-3.6 in some detail, Plaintiffs submit that their August 1, 2009, Motion was entirely in compliance with Local Rules 11-3.6, 11-3.6.1, 11-3.6.2, and 11.6.3. In any event, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory is currently being prepared. 28 U.S.C. §455(a)
MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARTHUR NAKAZATO
As noted above, Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order of August 6, 2009, seems entirely incompatible with Judge David O. Carter’s oral pronouncements made both literally and figuratively ex-cathedra in open court on Monday, July 13, 2009, that he intended to take this case concerning the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States seriously and see that the merits of this case would not be obscured by trivial technicalities. As the United States Supreme Court has held (per Justice Scalia) that …favorable or unfavorable predisposition can also deserve to be characterized as “bias” or “prejudice” because, even though it springs from the facts adduced or the events occurring at trial, it is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. (That explains what some courts have called the “pervasive bias” exception to the “extrajudicial source” doctrine. See, e.g., Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 188, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976).)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 551, 114 S.Ct.at 1155, 127 L.Ed.2d at 488 (1994). Plaintiffs submit that Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order, entered without any prior order of reference, without the consent of the parties, and without an order of transfer from the District Judge, shows in its content and tenor a disloyalty to Judge Carter’s promise and in fact a disregard (with regard to the pagination 11-3.6 issues) a complete disregard of the actual compliant nature of the motion attacked. If the Court believes that these Plaintiffs’ counsel has in any way violated Local Rule 11-3.6, the Plaintiffs’ pray that the Court will instruct counsel on the nature of the violations.
The reality is that a firestorm broke loose on the internet and electronic media generally on August 2-5 concerning the document attached to Plaintiff’s August 1, 2009 Document 34 as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs’ counsel was subjected to verbal abuse including death-threats and that this firestorm was unjustifiably fed and fanned by Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order. The reality of this case is that respect for the importance of the issues involved, such as the respect shown by Judge David O. Carter on July 13, 2009, is the only hope for a fair and just resolution in the best interests of the people of the United States.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the United States District Court will sustain their objections to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s order entered Thursday August 6, 2009, which objections are submitted within ten business days as allowed by Rule 6(a)(2), and that the Court will set together the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Judge Nakazato’s order together with the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge Arthur Nakazato for hearing prior to the 24 days after service required by local Rule 6-1 and 7-4 which yields an “ordinary” Motion day of September 14, 2009. Respectfully submitted,
Monday, August 18, 2009
By:________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
"http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3906"
Monday’s action by Orly at post 9584.