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
And you will notice that not one single 0bama suckup has come to that thread.
Odd. All they could say is either “no, he’s not gay” or “it doesn’t matter if he’s gay”.
What is an issue-specific troll?
What is an issue-specific troll?
***You said you had no problem with that, and I even provided a link where such things are defined and discussed. How much spoon feeding do you require?
I’m not following. I can barely keep up with Certifigate, let alone all the other scandals brewing. So, perhaps my only basis for telling you he won’t be out in a year is that there’s so many others ahead of that scandal in line. ;-)
Mostly because RICO statutes also apply to corrupt judges.
I think zer0bama got advance notice that he was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that’s why he waited to “make a decision” on Afghanistan. He was hoping there would be an upwelling of support. He spent whatever political capital he gained from the Nobel by pushing for this ridiculous military policy, and soon he’ll be broke when it comes to political capital.
No, more because they think statute was meant for gangsters and gets mis-used for other stuff.
parsy, who is falling asleep
The link you provided doesn’t define an issue-specific troll. It defines “Forum sliding, Consensus cracking, Topic dilution, Information collection, Anger trolling, Gaining full control.”
I don’t require any spoon feeding. You started the freaking conversation. It wasn’t the other way around. So don’t answer the question. I don’t care how you define a troll. Nothing I’ve ever posted, on any subject, fits the descriptions posted at the link you provided.
The fact is that the birthers are quick to holler troll when someone disagrees with them. And the mods are right that it’s getting old. I’ve never attacked anyone, never been rude or impolite, but I receive plenty of it from that group.
I’m sure he got advance notice; I hadn’t thought of it (I try not to!) but of course he must have.
Just check those two pages, please! The photos. There’s that photo of him and his “friend” Siddiqi when they lived togehter in NYC. You can see that they are holding hands. Yup.
Check it out! No lots of fine print, just check out the photos. Disucssion is much about photos.
Here ya go, SpoonFedTexan, the link you need in order to come up to speed on this issue.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2165967/posts?page=241#241
Start at #197 and see the process unfold, as well as its denouement. Then just substitute (Star Traveler) with (curiosity) or (mlo) or maybe even (SpoonFedTexan) to see if the output of the equation is within the boundary values.
You appear to be very confused about exactly what "discovery" is. In layman's terms, it's a permission granted by the court to further pursue documents and testimony in a case the court has judged to have merit. But even if a case is allowed to proceed, the plaintiff has to show a basis in fact that any document or testimony should be "discovered."
So far, Taitz hasn't presented any facts. This latest nonsense includes a list of entries on a publicly available database that bear the name "Barack Hussein Obama." This list has been shoveled into every Taitz (and some other) court filings since February, so it's hardly new.
Instead of contracting with private investigators to verify or discredit these names/addresses and come up with some specific facts -- a duty which is the PLAINTIFF'S responsibility, not the Court's or the defendant -- she's done nothing but make dramatic, and slanderous accusations that these unsourced and uninvestigated entries constitute "fraudulent manipulation of his own identity, and the legal identity of others" and "appears to have committed a substantial number of felony violations."
She asserts that the affidavits of two PI's -- Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels -- "show beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of manipulation of Barack Hussein Obama’s identity, employment, and residence information," when the affidavits merely state that these are the numbers the PI's have found in some unnamed database(s)/source(s), and nothing else.
She made a similar misrepresentation to Judge Carter in the Oct. 5 hearing about document expert Sandra Limes saying in her affidavit that the online COLB "was forged." Limes said no such thing. What Limes did say is that "any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." Too bad Orly doesn't apply that statement to the first fake Kenya BC that she submitted to the Court, which has been proven to be a forgery, but which she still insists, with no authentication, to be genuine.
No judge in his right mind would grant discovery based on such insane and unsourced allegations. And if the dark day comes that a judge does grant discovery based on this type of garbage, we will all have lost, big time, because the ramifications for each and every one of us would be horrifying.
So the one true test of a conservative is if they blindly follow Orly Taitz? Birthers truly are crazy.
Please explain how a plaintiff who is offended by the presence of an eight foot cross on a remote mountaintop in the Mojave Desert that harms no one can be granted standing for his lawsuit in a Federal Court, but plaintiffs in these eligibility cases where eminently more is at stake are denied standing.
It would seem that if the constitution requires the candidates to be qualified and the president was not required to prove his qualification, and his campaign posted a fraudulant document, that would constitute enough for a judge to grant discovery so that the best evidence of his qualifications could be presented.
My theory of standing is that all Americans have a right to an honest election. The allegations of fraud, as I mentioned above, means that our rights have possibly been violated and their may be a fraud sitting in the Oval Office. That right and those allegations should give every voter standing to present their case in court and have the defendant present their records.
What does that question have to do with the subject of "discovery?"
It might, if the court has first judged that the case has standing, and you could prove that the document is fraudulent. So far, no one's presented proof that it is fraudulent -- just a whole of lot of accusations from anonymous internet sources.
You will probably argue that no one's proved it's authentic, based on the fact that the document has only been presented as an internet image. But why is that? Why didn't Berg, who was actively gathering "evidence" at the time, ask to have a certified document expert examine the certification photographed by FactCheck at Obama's campaign office? Why hasn't Orly Taitz requested that a certified document expert be allowed to examine the physical evidence?
There’s no need to refuse to tolerate something that doesn’t exist.
You’re making things up in an attempt to follow Alinsky’s tactic #4.
But Alinsky didn’t say the tactic included fabricating a scenario and then responding to it. Stick to what Alinsky was trying to teach you.
Conservatives are on a roll because leftists are incompetent and their ideology is fraudulent.
Why don’t you try to do something about that little problem you guys are having? Good luck.
That's not true. The legislative intent also included as targets, those who control governments, elected officials and members of the judiciary. In fact, there have been a number of judges convicted under the RICO statutes, Operation Greylord being the best known example. BTW, isn't a corrupt judge a "gangster"; especially if he corrupts a court with the assistance of others?
Once again you equate Birthers with conservatives, and claim that the true test of conservatism is blind worship of Orly Taitz. That is about as accurate as the rest of your posts are, which is to say not accurate at all.
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.