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
Those "additional proofs and documents to back up your claim" would be considered facts, would they not???
Uncle Chip, who thought so.
Oh wait! I take that back. I can’t sue you. I don’t have standing.
But wait, maybe I can hire Orly?? I can get a Scotland Yard investigator on the deal and then an affidavit that someone who looks like you was seen bewitching someone who looks like Eric Holder over at the coffee shop?? Then I can run a credit check on everybody in the world who has your name, and accuse you of all sorts of identity fraud! Yes, that’s it!
parsy, who is going to contact Orly
My theory is Larry Klayman had a sex change.
Yes. AFTER you get them they are evidence. BUT you have to have a factual basis for your claim FIRST. And, the birthers ain’t got none. Suspicions are not facts. What Orly is trying to do is called a “fishing expedition”
parsy, who says you can’t sue someone on “suspicions”
Yeah but at least Larry acted like a lawyer, not Torqemada.
parsy, who will miss Orly when she is gone
You could go see her for a teeth cleaning.
Just to let you now, I don’t bother reading your dribblings at all. My eyes skim over them without reading, and I do the same with all the other 0bama suckups.
reasonisfaith,
I’ve told you before that accusing me of putting my soul in danger of destruction is crossing the line. You can call me a troll and taunt me all you want because I will ignore it. What I won’t tolerate is being accused of being a liar and engaging in corrupt, immoral behavior that is part of darkness and destruction.
I didn’t engage a single birther on this thread. I was minding my own business when along came the birthers with their taunts and personal attacks against FReepers that they’ve labeled as trolls. Your group behaves as if they own these threads and that non-birthers are violating some rule simply by being present.
Back off. Don’t call me a liar. Don’t question the status of my soul. I’ll ignore the rest of your passive-aggressive behavior.
Well, okay. Just be aware that this does call into question the lucidity of your responses to them.
Have a nice day.
Orly won't be going anywhere, unlike Gary Kreep and Alan Keyes who have actually booked a cruise during the final pre-conference date.
Orly, on the other hand, will find another sucker willing to throw away their military career and file somewhere else. And we'll be back to where we started.
LIke I give a flying **** what you or other trolls say or think.
I did happen to read your comment becuase it was at the top of my pings page. But 99% of the time I don’t bother to read the spittle flying from the 0bama suckups.
Sure, no argument about that.
My point was that JimRob has defended a couple of the alleged trolls as having been in on the ground floor of establishing FR’s credibility. Also, the mods have reapeatedly warned the birthers about calling FReepers trolls simply for differences of opinion. In my experience, it always the birthers who launch the personal attacks and begin the taunting on these threads.
That’s ok. They will be there for the day when you start having more doubts and the thirst for truth starts growing in you. I won’t send you any more in the meantime, but the parsy support group for you ex-birthers will be available for you. Just let me know and you can cry on my shoulder and I will help you work your thru that moment. Seriously.
parsy, who cares about his poor freeper bros who have fallen for this stuff.
Or alternatively, if Carter finds standing for at least one plaintiff (he pretty much agreed that the political candidate plaintiffs had standing IMO) he will want that ruling to be upheld on appeal.
Carter said he hadn't made up his mind at the close of the hearing. This should be terrifying to Obama and the DOJ as they and every attorney commenting on blogs on the case that I have seen has said that there was no standing.
I view the fact that it is taking Carter so long as positive for at least one plaintiff. If Carter was going to dismiss it it would be so easy and he would never be overturned IMO on appeal in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS. The whole circus would just move on to the next venue (obviously quo warranto in DC with new and improved arguments).
Well, I probably get a little too sarcastic at times. Plus I pontificate too darn much but I been doing it since I was a kid.
parsy, the wordy
No there afraid of being called lunatics.
May I be the first to designate you as leader of the “Witcher Movement”?
Ya know what would be funny?
Stock the staterooms with troll dolls.
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.