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
I thought Stanley Ann was a female of gender???
Now the birthers think if they don’t talk to us, it’ll all be ok. I think this is a good sign. It means they are starting to have doubts. They are on their way to recovery.
parsy, who looks forward to the prodigals returning to the fold, although I am going to miss Orly
Maybe FR management is trying to tell you something?
Since when is honest debate “being on a mission”???? Every time the birthers discover some new “evidence” I always look at it. More than willing to. I think we are harsh on Orly, but she deserves it for misleading these people with foolishness.
parsy, who is shaking his head
Somehow, that seems so appropriate on this thread at this stage! LOL
parsy, who isn’t on a mission
The birthers don’t want to have a real conversation about the issues and the law. They want to appear as defenders of the Constitution even while sacrificing the rule of law to pursue their own mission - to remove Obama from office at any cost. They claim that they want only the truth, but if the truth doesn’t fit their agenda, they reject it and then attack it.
Tex, who may start a ping list for Orly Taitz whack-a-mole threads
I think some are sincere and have been duped by Orly and others. She files some BS Motion and a lot of the birthers don’t know any better. It looks like good law if you don’t know law. Others are just what you say - intent on getting Obama at any cost. Just don’t confuse them with the facts.
parsy, who remembers what Bob the Baptist said - He went to Bourbon Street because it was where he was needed the most
Maybe FR management is trying to tell you something?
***Let’s see, one of the mods posts a definition of TROLL, and then they finally get around to using their own definition when they tell the obnoxious CoLB star travelling troll to stop visiting these threads. If they’re trying to tell anyone something, it’s CoLB trolls that their time is up.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a ...
(Trolling 101) E-Mail and Freepers. Posted on 01/16/2009 12:36:53 PM PST by ...
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2165967/posts?page=254
You want to remove the Presidnet of the United States from office, you can impeach him,
***Yup, unfortunately that’s true. And since we couldn’t get the congress to convict an obvious perjurer when there was incontrovertible blue-dress evidence, there’s even less of a chance to get them to go after Obama. This thing is a definite long shot, and the only thing we can really do is exact a political payment of some damage to zer0bama’s presidency. The best part about it is the leverage — he’s spending more than $1M to fight this, when he could make it go away for $10, so that’s a difference of 6 figures as leverage. No other topic has that much leverage, so there’s no reason not to keep plugging away and drawing blood.
IMO when 0bama finally “resigns” or gets close - crap revealed, public outcry, or something like that - a huge bugzapper thread will occur.
I think 0bama will be out within a year.
Add me if you do. I suspect there'll be quite a bit of activity this week.
Many if not most historical revelations start with the unwashed against the class that have garnered for themselves princely titles and perfumed themselves with self-righteousness. They are often hideous in their condescension.
The issue here now in this case is not the ‘dittziness’ of Taitz and her loyal following of less than perfect practitioners nor the sloppiness of the material submitted, the issue is the judge and how he looks ahead at appeals.
The judge is pulling for Taitz by offering the comment last week that he would have ‘suggestions concerning standing’. So it matters not how Taitz is viewed condescendingly by you and other fellow egoists, whether she ‘did her homework’, whether the lists were scrutinized, etc. What matters to the judge is whether a decision of his to deny dismissal based on adequate standing can be upheld in appeals.
And we can be sure that defendants will be in appeals court the same day that motion to dismiss is denied.
Not at all. Merely stating a fact that Orly tossing in all this bogus BS a week after the hearing will have no impact at all on Judge Carter's decision. He'll go with what he has.
Believe it or not. You can't buy this kind of comedy.
Then he should present them in a court of law unless his legal team is afraid that they are forgeries.
My point is that it doesn't matter if they are.
So forgery is okay with you.
You want to remove the Presidnet of the United States from office, you can impeach him
If he is not legally qualified according to the Constitution to be President, then he is at best still only a President-elect, and doesn't need to be impeached to be removed from the Oval Office.
or call a Constitutional Convention and amend to Constutition, to allow for some other type of removal.
or just enforce the Constitution that we already have with its XX Amendment that is already there.
Period.
Period.
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.