Posted on 10/11/2009 1:32:18 PM PDT by Elderberry
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 10/11/2009 at 12:57 PM PDT and filed on 10/11/2009
Come now the Plaintiffs with this Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages are not required in public sector mail & wire fraud relating to political corruption under 18 U.S.C. §1346, together with notice of filing expanded report by Susan Daniels.
During this Court’s hearing on October 5, 2009, the Court searchingly examined counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the sole threshold question of “standing.” Plaintiffs’ provided arguments of Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing or else 9th Amendment reserved rights to Petition for Redress of Grievances concerning a clear violation of the Constitution’s clearly demarcated qualifications for the Presidency, as well as Oath taker standing per Allen v Board of Education and USA v Clark . l
Plaintiffs have, in the course of their investigations during the past year, accumulated a substantial amount of evidence concerning the Mr. Obama’s fraudulent manipulation of his own identity, and the legal identity of others. To this end Plaintiffs have previously submitted the Affidavit and Independent Investigative Report of Former Scotland Yard Inspector Neal Sankey and now submit the expanded Report of Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels.
These two private investigation reports, although slightly duplicative, show beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of manipulation of Barack Hussein Obama’s identity, employment, and residence information. The use of a multitude of social security numbers alone is indicative that Mr. Obama appears to have committed a substantial number of felony violations, including but not limited to violations of 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B). which shows dishonest political advantage during 2008 election.
Plaintiffs submit again that “the American People Reserve the Right to know”. Furthermore, the examination and decipherment of the trail of deception so casually left by this successful candidate will (1) lead ultimately to discovery of the truth about his origins and citizenship, (2) reveal the nature of the scheme to defraud by which this Mr. Barack Hussein Obama became President, and (3) show the degree and nature of the collusion of other people and parties in the scheme of defraud leading to his election, including but not limited to the other Defendants.
The Plaintiffs have repeatedly alleged that the election of 2008 was procured by fraud. Acquisition of high public office by and through implementation of a scheme to defraud regarding material facts regarding a candidate’s qualifications and identity is a species of public sector fraud. Such a scheme to defraud is actionable by private parties under 18 U.S.C. §1346, in that each instance of the use of interstate wires or mail delivery facilities counts as an individual predicate act under Civil R.I.C.O., 18 U.S.C. §§1961, 1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c).
Plaintiffs request the Court to take note that the United States Congress’ express purpose in enacting 18 U.S.C. §1346 was to ensure that corruption by both (even paired) public and private sector defendants (such as Defendants Barack and Michelle Obama were from the Illinois Senatorial Election 2004-up-through January 20, 2009 individualized damages were not required to obtain convictions under 18 U.S.C. §1346.
It logically follows that Civil RICO actions relating to public and private sector corruption which would utilize predicate acts of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §1346 could likewise be brought without proof of individualized damages or “standing” in the civil sense.
Plaintiffs accordingly submit that the principles of prosecutions of public corruption based on 18 U.S.C. §1346 be applied to evaluate the standing of the Plaintiffs in the present above-entitled-and-numbered case Barnett v. Obama.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court take Judicial Notice of the doctrine of the people’s intangible right to honest services based on 18 U.S.C. §1346, and consider the significance for the standing of the people to bring suit under Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)), that the criminal predicate acts for RICO which may be substantiated under this title do not require specific personalized injury to business or property interests.
Accordingly, the people of the United States may sue for Civil RICO for the fraudulent denial of their intangible right to honest services without showing individualized specific injury, and this case should be allowed to go forward, albeit with Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint allowed to be filed, and considered as a fundamental (complementary) element of citizen standing. Respectfully submitted, Sunday, October 11, 2009
Did you see the Betty Obama in Connecticut above? Or poor old Bertrand Obama in Maryland? Another Obama in Texas? I wonder if these people are getting weird phone calls and people wearing tin foil hat drive-bys?
parsy, who is beginning to enjoy the insanity
I think we’re supposed to meet Eric Holder at the coffee shop. Maybe he’ll pay us in cash? Or, he could give us a 1099 under one of Obama’s unused socsec numbers.
parsy, who could use the dough
The better part of me wishes that you guys would wake up, for your own sake, but the mordidly curious part of me has to admit this is just too compelling. Like watching a train wreck.
parsy, who wishes he was more mature
Will he at least cover the check?
I was going to point them out, but sometimes I'm just afraid to see what explanations people are going to offer to make this stuff make sense. :-)
I’m sure he has a gov’t credit card. I’m going to splurge and get an extra shot or two of expresso. I hope we can recognize him.
I think the link is that all the names on the list are “b” Obama. Everybody knows that bees have a hive mentality and are socialist insects, so whoever ran the credit check or skip trace program just assumed all “Obama”s in the country whose first initial was “B” must be the prez.
Darn, but Scotland Yard is efficient!
parsy, who may also order some chocolate covered expresso beans....
What did you think of the stupid RICO stuff? I’m betting the judge tells her if she thinks she has a RICO claim, then she needs to file a RICO suit. Would not surprise me if she files an Amended Complaint before he dismisses.
parsy, who is trying to think like Orly. (It’s not hard, drink a few drinks, pop a valium, bang your head against door jamb until you see stars)
Don't count on a federal judge Google searching by name the cases in your brief. There's a proper form of citation, and she doesn't use it.
Not to worry. I’ve resolved to stop nipping at their bait.
By that I assume you mean, by any lawful Constitution means.
I've resolved to do just that.
RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) Act seems like a fitting vehicle to bring this home, considering the nature of Obama’s many Chicago associates. The requisite pattern of corruption is certainly there.
Here are the two lots mentioned for the Islamic center.
www.icnf.org/
Perceive ,
Practice and Propagate Islam
I S L A M I C C E N T E R O F N O R T H F U L T O N
1265 Rucker Road , Alpharetta , GA - 30004 Phone: (678) 297-0019 map
Located on 5 acres of land in the city of Alpharetta, Georgia,
There is no 1603 Rucker. It goes from 1600 Rucker to http://tw0.us/3ts to 1610 Rucker http://tinyurl.com/yg5b9p5 and nada in between.
What would be really interesting is if the whole area is muslim and obama lived on one of the lots. Or he just made it up as he does everything else. I will see what I can find out later.
Huh? Is this in some kind of alternate universe?
mlo of course they are truly amazing
9 cases filed, 8 dismissed, 2 as frivolous in the opinion of the court, and 2 not filed by clerks office for gross errors. THAT is truly amazing.
Don’t forget the $10K fine!
I just can’t believe that there wasn’t even one DA that would bring criminal charges against the One.
I am not obsessing, but you are so pig headed I tried to help you out with that example, since you were having trouble comprehending that the SS# most often used by Obama and tied to his addreses was issued in Connecticut in 1977-79 and belonged to someone else. This remains to be answered. What is your after birther explanation?
Based on my own experience and communication with others, even in the 70's one had to have a SS number before working at a regular job. Did you?
I've noticed. There seems to be a sort of battle that occurs early on in these bc threads between those who want to honestly discuss the topic, and those who are determined to shut down all discussion.
If the news is fairly hot, the group interest seems to overcome the naysaying Obot brigade, but I've seen some of these threads peter out because of the onslaught.
I've got to find that jpeg of the troll with the "Don't Feed The Trolls!" caption.
She has insured that no American child in the next century will be named “Orly”
I’m sorry. All this ss number is hard to keep up with. Which number did he use at ice cream shop? And yes, even in 70’s you had to have an ss crad to work.
parsy, who is kinda pig-headed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.