Orly Request for Notice that Individual Damages not Required in Public Sector Mail&Wire Corruption

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation | Oct. 11.2009 | Dr. Orly Taitz

[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

[Marmolade]

“while it gave him a life-long distaste for ice cream, “

Just curious where this comment came from - is this something he supposedly said? It struck me as odd, because earlier today, on another thread (don’t remember which) there were multiple pictures posted of him eating ice cream.

[RebelTex]

bookmark

[parsifal]

Well put! FWIW I was frivolously sued once by someone who was from Texas and believed in “Federal Common Law”. Her pleadings were unfathomable and dense. A lot of pro se stuff is. Long on conjecture and conclusions and short of facts.

parsy, who can’t wait to hear the lamentations when Judge Carter flushes this suit down the toilet

[kukaniloko]

119 years old huh? How did Obama get McCain’s Social Security number?

[Red Steel]

Thanks for posting this...what about the whole expanded Report of Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels? Is this archived on www.scribd.com?

You're welcome. I don't know if the PI has the expanded report on Scribd.com

[parsifal]

And....may I add. I hope the Judge does NOT dismiss this action. I hope Orly has to go to court and do discovery and file a gazillion motions and answer motions because it is so darn interesting. Orly is the Ed Wood Of Litigation and I want to enjoy her while I can. Poor old Ed Wood didn’t get any respect until he was gone and I don’t want to miss living in the moment with Orly. We will not see her like again.

parsy, the selfish

[Marmolade]

I'm not trying to distract from the discussion here, but the ice cream comment just seemed weird to me.

[parsifal]

The Kenyan Intelligence Service.

parsy

[GilGil]

Gil 1 Shills 0

[rolling_stone]

follow the links its from a Honolulu newspaper
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html

[Pilsner]

if someone has advocated every possible anti-birther angle since before the election, you have to ask yourself, what are they still getting out of it, if not a paycheck?

Yeah, that's the ticket! Millions and millions of attorneys in this country, a very large part of the either Republicans, or Hillary supporters, were all bought off, in secret, without leaving a paper trail, without a single one of them turning down the bribe, or a single one of them taking the money, then blabbing about it, leaving no even marginally competent attorneys to bring these cases, only raving wack jobs like Orly.

You gotta believe that to keep being a Birther. You gotta either have second thoughts, or drink the cool aid down to the dregs. Bottoms up!

Oh, and more bad news,Birthers. Your glass of cool aid keeps getting refilled. With every setback you can either shrug your shoulders, and admit there was never a case to be tried, or you can believe the newest conspiracy theory, explaining why it is that Birtherism never prospers.

[reasonisfaith]

Right.

[reasonisfaith]

Sure.

[kukaniloko]

At this point, you’ve got to wonder if those still playing the discrdited pro-birther angles are on the DOJ payroll.

[Windflier]

You might not be a troll. I’m reserving judgment until I see more of your posts.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re mistakenly using “independent thought” in place of “following the crowd.”

[Marmolade]

thanks, will do.

[reasonisfaith]

You must be pleased at what a strong case you have regarding Obama’s willingness to release his personal records.

Just brilliant.

[mlo]

"You’re mistakenly using “independent thought” in place of “following the crowd.”

You can't be serious. You think arguing with birthers on birther threads is "following the crowd"?

[Eye of Unk]

Death by a million paper cuts to Obama by all these issues.

Of course “something” could strike right out of the blue that would force the issue of Obama having to vacate the Whitehouse and after that happens these types of court cases will be all brought to light and used to portray him as he really is, a fabricated idiot that was voted into office by a mass of idiots and supported by the idiotic return to a power base of the democratic party that well knows they cannot object to the truth or they will find themselves kicked out of politics.

i am glad Obama gets a daily accolade of gifts and peace prizes, the bigger they become the harder they will fall, and obam when he falls will fall very hard and fast and will create a suction so great that all his supporters will also be dragged down.

I’m not new here at FR, matter of facts I knew all about these SSN’s many months ago through my own research and thus I’m not following some new event here, I had to know the truth and I can see it.

Anyone see the trailer for the remake of “V” yet?

Hmmm

Hmmm

Hmmm