Replies

OK - if you haven't read the COMPLETE ruling, all 30 pages, then you can not understand how this issue can be resolved. Judge Carter did an excellent job of explaining how each and every point raised by both sides is either valid or not valid. He also pointed out, tactfully, each mistake that Orly made. Hopefully she will learn from her clearly basic incompetence.

For example these quotes from the ruling [brackets, font color blue, and bold emphasis are mine]:

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.

Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
“Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. [Judge now explains how FOIA might be obtained.] FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an “agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, [this sounds to me like Judge Carter believes that a properly constructed Rico case might have been sufficient to grant standing, jurisdiction, and justiciability as I sense some disappointment and frustration because this is the only time he so plainly chastised her - but then again, I could be wrong, LOL] and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.

I mentioned on an earlier thread that, IMO, a civil case on RICO against Obama, DNC, ACORN, MSM, and Dem leaders seeking documents by subpoena (birth certificate, passports, school records, DNC certification, etc.) as additional evidence showing fraud, collusion and conspiracy could be enough to obtain jurisdiction in any District Court.

Standing might then be easier to obtain showing actual monetary damages, civil rights violations (right to vote, fair elections, intent to defraud through higher taxes and nationalizing select businesses and industries as well as theft, tortious interference with private contracts, etc.). Any executive that has had their pay cut, any auto dealer that lost their dealership, anyone that loses or is in jeopardy of losing their health insurance might qualify.

Justiciability would be simple if requested redress was limited to monetary damages and a finding of Obama not being NBC. Since a District Court can not remove a President from office or declare a President ineligible, that should not be requested. A finding of not being NBC can then be used to pressure Congress for Impeachment or removal of Obama as being unfit for office. Of course we would want this to occur after the new Congress is installed in 2010, which shouldn't be a problem as a RICO trial would probably take at least a year.