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
PArs, you and non’s constant rants on EVERY one of these threads only indicate to us how close we are to getting what we want.
Otherwise you bozo’s wouldn’t even bother to show up.
Your boss must be getting worried.
The full-scale assault on open discussion now amounts to signal jamming by the Obots.
Their goal is to get us off topic and to post as many meaningless posts as they can early on the thread.
----
DOJ denies existence of a 'blog squad'
Washington Times ^ | Oct 8, 2009 | Kerry Picket
Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:47:32 PM by Jim Robinson
Parsy, no where near a redeemer.
Buckeyed texan a new troll to the birther threads.
You show how bad this is becoming for him by the very fact you are here.
mlo, you haven’t had an independent thought in your life. You post from a script.
Its about time this hits the MSM, this pool of SSN’s has been used by an organization that has been patiently waiting to infiltrate a “messiah” into the highest branch of the American government, shades of KAOS or SPECTRE?
This is obviously standing mark my words as an American citizen.
My whole lifestyle has been deprived in economic areas, freedom of speech expression by being officially classified as a domestic terrorist and my security of my family is now threatened by having a usurper controlling our nation and basically surrendering to our enemies. Scorpion and the Frog, you cannot deal with terrorism, its their nature and it cannot be changed.
Obama has put America in harms way.Of course We The People have standing in this matter.
Thanks for the link, I missed that one. I remember them denying the blog issue but that was a nice catch in Jim’s post.
BUSTED.
The birther issue has them freaked outm hence the action of so many leftists here early on the birther threads. And almost always the same group of nut jobs.
They are freaking out.
“As is the Taitz suck-up-in-chief. How are you this fine Sunday evening?’
So non admits he is an Obama supporter. tell me non do you get the private limo rides like Larry Sinclair did or are you not in the inner circle.
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Obama_Citizenship/Research_Lisa_OSTELLA.php?item=341449
The message left:
Name - OBAMA, BARACK Street Address - 1603 RUCKER RD City, State, Zip - ALPHARETTA GA 30004-1435 Probable Current Address - No Telephone - Telephone Accountholder - Social Security - 579-02-xxxx Age - Date of Birth - Deceased - No Date Record Verified - Feb 08 - Aug 08
Ok I checked on the above address because I know the area and there is no 1603 Rucker Road shown on the tax appraiser web site HOWEVER there is an Islamic Center of North Fulton Inc. showing ownership of two properties on the same road at 1255 and 1265 Rucker Road as well as a man by the name of Hussain Mohammed Shahib and Shaiman Bano showing ownership of the properies located at 1380 1410 and 1420 Rucker Road now I will drive up to the 1603 address sometime tomorrow and see if it exists or not but this is a strange coincidence yes??
That was before Eric Holder came into town and had a talk with Judge Carter...just sayin...
red Jim just posted a new thread on the DOJ blogsquad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2360195/posts
What exactly are their correct names? I found them in a google search???
Which is garbage? Good question. That’s why investigators investigate. They don’t just compile a list, voice some suspicions, and then throw the thing into court for someone else to figure out.
Once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_DEtfvv9MU&feature=related
Law is NOT: Can you prove this didn’t happen?
parsy, who says the Plaintiff’s have this burden
Let us know what you find.
That was a poster on the uslaw blog website. But I can look now and see what it is. Maybe she did the update and I could not find it, hold on.
True.
parsy, who is fighting the good fight
Cases are identified by plaintiff name then defendant. There are a couple of Clark cases dating back over 120 years so it's hard to know exactly which one Orly is citing. But in any case, they're all Clark v. U.S., not USA. And in the other case, the Board of Ed was the plaintiff, not Allen. But by now I'm sure Judge Clark is used to trying to go what Orly meant and not by what she says.
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.