Posted on 04/16/2013 9:21:37 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court will hear oral argument regarding both California Defendants’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on April 22, 2013 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 7. The Court will allot each party--Plaintiffs, California Defendants, and Federal Defendants--a maximum of 30 minutes of oral argument. Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants. No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF No. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss. A new hearing date will be set for said motion if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.
As with the case in 2009 before Judge Carter, this is still a pre-trial hearing so "no witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted" to prove identity and selective service fraud.
If Orly gets past this hearing then the judge will schedule a hearing on Orly's "Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants."
In Orly's "Motion To Stike The Motion To Dismiss" that resulted in the judge ordering the hearing, Orly argues:
"Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss this case supposedly on behalf of the U.S. Congress without any knowledge and consent of the U.S. Congress, keeping the members of the U.S. Congress in the dark. Later, if and when the U.S. Congress decides to impeach Obama due to his illegitimacy to the U.S. Presidency, due to fraud committed by Obama and due to his use of forged and stolen IDs, Obama will use this action and current motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the U.S. Congress and without knowledge of the U.S. Congress, in order to evade future impeachment, possibly claiming double jeopardy, Res Judicata or collateral estoppel. For this reason alone current motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice has to be stricken and the U.S. Congress has to be given time to file a response by the counsel chosen by the U.S. Congress, specifically by the Office of the Chief Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"b. Motion to dismiss by the State defendants: Governor Brown and Secretary of state Bowen was filed by the Attorney General of California Kamala Harris.
"Attached news paper article (Exhibit 1) shows that Harris is a fundraiser for Obama and Obama is a fundraiser for Harris.Moreover, Kamala Harris is related to #2 in Obama Department of Justice, Tony West. Maya Harris, the sister of Kamala Harris is married to West, therefore Tony West is the brother in law of Kamala Harris. West is a well known bundler, who bundled reported 65 million dollars for Obama's campaign. Clearly a person who bundled 65 million for a campaign of a politician, did not do it just to prosecute such candidate and send him to prison for his use of forged and stolen IDs. Kamala Harris had an ethical obligation to advise this court of the conflict of interest. As an Attorney General of CA, she is listed as an attorney for the State defendants in this case: Governor of California and Secretary of State of California. In relation to the elections, the goal of the Secretary of State and the Governor was to sign a legitimate certificate of vote and a legitimate certificate of ascertainment. Defendant Secretary of State is the top State election official whose main job description is assuring lawful elections. The goal of Barack Obama was to defraud the Federal and State Elections officials, as he ran and got the position of the President by fraud and use of forged and stolen IDs. Harris had a duty to disclose to the court that she is a fundraiser for Obama, that Obama is a major fundraiser for herand that her brother in law is a major bundler for Obama and #2 in ObamaDepartment of Justice. Harris had a duty to recuse herself due to conflict of interest, so that this court could appoint an independent firm to representthe State defendants to be paid from the funds allocated by the state forlegal defense of state officials sued in their official capacity."
ping to Orly actually getting a pre-trail hearing on standing before a US district judge in CA! Get the popcorn for this 1.5 hour hearing next Monday, April 22.
Isn’t Bammy in the dictionary as the example for the definition of fraud?
Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants.
Can we get the Cliff Notes version for those of us who have given up on this?
Thanks for the ping!
It is hard to believe but the judge might have actually responded to some part of the following from Taitz’s motion:
“On the issue of the most egregious crime in the history of this nation, usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal using forged and stolen I.D.s , the U.S. Department of Justice defrauded the U.S. Congress, this court and American people and went behind the back of the U.S. Congress in order to cover up Obama’s forged and stolen IDs. U.S. Department of Justice became criminally complicit in the Racketeering Scheme to cover up Obama’s forged IDs.
“IF THIS COURT GRANTS A MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEYS’OFFICE, THIS COURT WILL ABUSE ITS’ JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND WILL GRANT AMOTION BY AN ATTORNEY,( IN THIS CASE THE ATTORNEY IS THE DEPARTMENTOF JUSTICE), WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT ONE SINGLE PARTY IN THIS CASE. BY DOING SO THIS COURT WILL BECOME COMPLICIT IN THE RACKETEERING SCHEME TO COMMIT THE ELECTIONS FRAUD AND TO USURP THE U.S.PRESIDENCY WITH THE USE OF FORGED AND STOLEN IDs.”
Appreciate the ping Seizethecarp. I noticed this from the April 4, 2013 order by Judge England. It states:
“Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants. No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing.”
According to that, it’s going to be tuff for Orly since she can’t put show any exhibits like his fraudulent selective service registration. The reason I say that is because Judge England seems to have made his mind up already. He also stated this:
“…there is no requirement that there be any type of identification shown at any time for any person to be the President of the United States, as required by the United States Constitution, because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.” Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. January 3, 2013.
Looks like he is siding with the Hawaiian Department of Health.
“...the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”
The plaintiff should have the opportunity to challenge the prima facie self-authentication of the Director’s letter and the LFBC.
Taitz has made the judge aware of Sheriff Arpaio’s claims that Hawaii officials might be complicit in “racketeering” to make Barry POTUS. The judge might want to make sure that he doesn’t get any blowback down the road if Arpaio’s Posse makes there case.
If he had made up his mind he could have dismissed the case outright on the motions from CA and DOJ, I would think.
I am personally convinced the post turtle is a fraud and an usurper, but this tilting at windmills is getting me down, where is the closure??
Years after the bastard is gone and his damage done do not do any of us any good, beyond a "told you so".
We all feel Orly is a bit loose in the gears, but there is no attorney or judge who could have broken the wall of guardianship for the fraudulent sonofabitch in the White Hut. Oaths taken by elected representatives mean nothing in America anymore.
It’s odd that the judge calls a letter of verification to be “credible testimony,” especially when it never says Obama’s PDFs are “authentic.” It’s even more odd when the rules of evidence requires original certified documents to be submitted to the opposing party prior to a trial or else they are only considered to be hearsay.
“Can Taitz limited herself to these legal topics? Does she even know what they all are?”
Definitely not and probably not...
“Can we get the Cliff Notes version for those of us who have given up on this?”
The judge was drafting is Order To Dismiss Orly’s case but decided that he wanted to add some more biting points from Eric Holder and Barry’s “most beautiful AG” girlpal Kamala Harris plus he wanted some cable TV time to boost his prospects of being elevated to the appeals bench by Barry and knew he would get it with Orly pulling in the cameras.
“Always loved how the century “accidentally” fell off, and how it was postmarked THE DAY BEFORE he signed it. Happens all the time.”
From the thread link, Orly laments that Kamala Harris’s team correctly points out that:
IV. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT STATE A CLAIM UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 3328.
Plaintiffs allege that President Obama’s selective service registration is a forgery, and that he is therefore ineligible to serve as President under 5 U.S.C. § 3328. Dkt. 116 at 16. That statute states that anyone born after 1959, and who fails to register under the Selective Service Act, “shall be ineligible for an appointment to a position in an Executive agency.” This allegation fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, the President was elected, he was not “appointed” to a position “in an Executive Agency.” Second, the State Defendants have no warrant to enforce federal laws governing appointments to federal agencies.
“Why do I feel like some character in an old Charlie Brown cartoon with Lucy and a football very time I click on one of these threads?”
IMO, only after Arpaio’s Posse gets traction with a criminal indictment of forgery of the HI LFBC pdf can this kind of case get traction.
The judge will look to the HI authentication until evidence proves in a court that HI is criminally complicit in the forgery of the BC.
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.