The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 10/11/2009 at 12:57 PM PDT and filed on 10/11/2009
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:
Main Document
Original filename:C:\fakepath\Keyes request for judicial notice of title 18 -1346.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/11/2009] [FileNumber=8584558-0
] [a7cbe4da84e9becb71cb0e1d46498646ab7fdd33961c22311437e9abe9b62246601
bf6b6fe6c899abbaa42216054772bc2b4f280e35e6b10d8a1913bd56baf87]]
Document description:Affidavit Expanded affidavit by Susan Daniels
Original filename:C:\fakepath\Affidavit Susan Daniels.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/11/2009] [FileNumber=8584558-1
] [3b18478039729bbe3e55246acf2ab178a981b4f4dc1091bfb218aa561ef704d5b79
96960a7520976245d23b5a28f4ee38b8f6dc36e29e2776dedfe69c5e8644e]]
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7036
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, §
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § 18 U.S.C. §1346: Intangible
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § Rights Fraud-Request for Judicial
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § Notice that Individual Damages
President of the Senate, § Not Required in Public Sector
Defendants. § Mail & Wire Political Corruption
18 U.S.C. §1346: Intangible Rights Fraud—
Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages
Are not Required in Public Sector Mail & Wire Political Corruption
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
/s/ ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7036
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Sunday, October 11, 2009, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Request for Judicial Notice of Scheme to Defraud by Denial of the Intangible Right to Honest Services under 18 U.S.C. §1346 was served on all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTE David.Dejute@usdoj.gov
GARY KREEP usjf@usjf.net
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Sunday the 11th day of October, 2009.
/s/Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923-1889
Exhibit A:
Susan Daniels
Expanded Report
Submitted in Support of Plaintiffs Request for
Judicial Notice relating to
“Probable Cause” to allege a
Private Sector Scheme to defraud and pattern of racketeering underlay
The election of
Barack Hussein Obama to
Highest Office in the Public Sector;
I.E.: The Presidency in 2008
Was Taken by Fraud and
Assumed by an Unqualified Person.
OrlyTaitzEsq.com
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Will you please summarize in layman’s terms
what it means?
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Bullseye.
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
https://puzo1.blogspot.com/
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Link to the treason quote:
https://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg
Link to Case Summary:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0
Link to Full Case:
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Link to the treason quote:
https://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg
Link to Case Summary:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0
Link to Full Case:
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264
October 11th, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Overlooking the problems of the affidavit and the failure to complete obliterate the numerals in attempting to redact the SSNs, let’s take a look at the substance of Ch’Orly’s “Request for Judicial Notice.”
Orly, or perhaps only Charly, woke up and got a wiff of the coffee brewing at the October 5 hearing. Now realizes that Judge Carter is focusing on standing, and s/he has to come up with an argument to get around that stubborn constitutional obstacle. The solution? 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
Section 1346: Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to
defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the
intangible right of honest services.
Section 1346 is solely definitional. Where, in this provision, is a civil right of action authorized? Nowhere.
Presumably, Ch’Orly intends the underlying predicate act to be supplied by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c), which are provisions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. Again, § 1961 is definitional and creates no civil right of action. Thright to bring a civil action is supplied by § 1964(c):
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
Putting aside for the moment that no plaintiff in Barnett has alleged an injury to his/her business or property — civil RICO is a business tort — and let’s take a look at what else is necessary before a plaintiff can maintain a RICO civil suit. Ah, “a violation of section 1962.” Okay, now let’s consult section 1962.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
I take it that Ch’Orly is not alleging that Obama recieved any income through collection of an unlawful (but you never know!!!), so s/he must be alleging a pattern of racketeering activity. So what is “racketeering activity?” Let’s consult the definitions in section 1961.
As used in this chapter—
(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: [list of indictable acts follows]
Which “indictable” acts are the Barnett plaintiffs alleging? Well, at page 2 of the Request for Judicial Notice, Ch’Orly suggests that Obama’s alleged use of multiple SSNs “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).” Check section 1961 to see if a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408 is an “indictable act” giving rise to RICO liability
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us … -000-.html
… [checking] … [still checking] … [still checking] … [tapping fingers on desk] … [hmmmm] … . Anyone see it? No? Me neither.
The thing about civil RICO is that it has to be pled with specificity. Federal courts have adopted rules with strict pleading requirements in excess of the usual notice pleading. Thus, for example, in the Southern District of New York (where most RICO suits are litigated) the plaintiff must file a RICO Pleading Statement within 20 days of filing the complaint, containing all of the following:
The identity of each defendant and the alleged misconduct and basis for liability for each defendant;
A list of all alleged wrongdoers who are not defendants, and the misconduct of each wrongdoer;
A list of all alleged victims and how each was allegedly injured;
A list of all the predicate acts being relied on;
All dates, participants, and other surrounding facts for each predicate act;
The time, place, and contents of the representations for wire and mail fraud claims, and an explanation of how they form a pattern of racketeering activity;
A description of the alleged RICO enterprise in detail, with names of all individuals, corporations, and partnerships that comprise it;
A description of the “structure, purpose, nature, and course of conduct of the enterprise.”
Oops, Good thing Ch’Orly did’t file in S.D.N.Y., cuz s/he missed that 20-day deadline. In any event, it is plain that Captain Pamela Barnett and her co-plaintiffs have fallen far short of the mark for RICO in their pleading: The exact misconduct, the dates and surrounding facts for each predicate act, identities of all the participants in the wrongful act, etc. What a bind — now they must ask Judge Carter for leave to file [GASP] the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT!!!
Edit: Sorry for the long post. It’s just that tort liability arising from business and financial wrongdoing is something that I have a passing familiarity with, and civil RICO, well, gets me all worked up. Okay, pour that glass of wine now, BB.
October 11th, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
You have got to remov e Kreep immediately! I know you know, but the court needs to be told he is not part of your case and we the people of the US don’t want him!!! He is as much a fraud as obama.In your thoughts constant
Susan
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Dr. Taitz and staff:
Sent an important message encouraging some of your Witness prospects to come forward NOW with pertinent information YOU and Attorney Kreep can use immediately to strengthen your case. Sent also to Lucas Daniel Smith, another Federal Witness if called back in to testify. Time is of the essence and it would appear the case is getting stronger. No response from Interpol or FBI yet. Will let you know.
Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.
A Decorated American Veteran
Tampa, Florida USA 101209 @ 9:00 AM Eastern
October 13th, 2009 @ 5:36 am
w00t!! This is the greatest news Ever!! I can’t thank you enough!!
Thank you for restoring my faith in our country!! It seems like overnight our Constitution was being abandoned -I pray this helps to put us back on course! Corruption like this should never exist in the America I know and love! God Bless you!!!