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
Wanna bet? The two cases are in no way similar.
So which ones are garbage? Do you know what identity theft is or what an Imposter is? Where is the SS for Hawaii? If his first job which had a W-2 was in Hawaii at Baskin-Robbins, he should have been residing there and gotten a SS# starting with 575 or 576 none listed are from Hawaii, explain that please Parsifal Sherlock Holmes.
Force? I do it out of free will and because I enjoy commenting on the antics of Orly Taitz and her traveling legal freak show.
I see the head Obama supporter is online.
If a female has a first name as Stanley, it’s more cover for deceit to perpetrate fraud.
As is the Taitz suck-up-in-chief. How are you this fine Sunday evening?
We have a right to have an honest election. Allegations of fraud may mean that right was violated. Anyone who voted in the election has standing because all of the voters rights were abridged.
Oh — that’s right — that cross has been doing so much more damage on that lonely mountaintop and just has to be removed!!!
So I see you are still shaming the name of Parsifal.
Non three posts in a row, boy this one has you really worried.
parsy, who is once again amazed
Who is full of himself.
In his daily Obama damage control...
I see your point, but I’m not sure where legally to draw the line. If it’s new and he uses it, it does seem like the Obama lawyers should have a chance to respond to it and raise counter arguments.
By rights, the judge can take any knowledge of the law that he has into consideration, whether or not the lawyers raised it. For example a friend of the court filing. Not that this is a friend of the court filing, but judges sometimes consider those in their rulings, and I not positive, but I don’t think opposing lawyers get a chance to refute them.
I am unclear, just what does that list prove?
I grew up in a town of 15,000 and had three other people in it with the same first and last name. None of whom were related to me or even known by my family.
When I was in college I was continually vexed by there being another guy with the same first, last and middle name as mine. I imagine he felt vexed too.
So you’ve found a list of lots of people with similar names. This means precisely what?
Nice hit on the trolls with tha tlist, but they will ignore it completely.
Thanks. I thought it would bring some visual clarity to the subject that many here obscure.
You figure it out.
they haven’t shut down the thread. Besides you two side tracked the first page with your off topic comments.
That happens to be a tactic of the disruptors.
Seems this administration is tanking many notable organizations and what we once thought of them. Nobel Prize. And now Scotland Yard?
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.