Plaintiff in this case respectfully requests a judicial notice of the order by Judge Roger Vinson, Northern district of Florida, State of Florida et al v Department of Health et al 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT. Exhibit 1.

Plaintiff in this case, being a Doctor of Dental Surgery, was seeking an intervener status in case 10-cv-91, which was brought by attorneys of 13 states challenging constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill H.R. 3590. While motion to intervene was not granted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filed their motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of the Commerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs, this order provides an indication of the plaintiff’s standing to bring forward her challenge of the H.R. 3590, noting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“Taitz contends, and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by this act, she clearly has an interest in this action”.

Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action challenging H.R. 3590, which to a great extend serves as an opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing.

Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs. Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is frivolous. Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the Commerce clause, as well as on basis of

state of Connecticut. US Attorneys Machen, Contreras and Burch, who have been representing the defendant in this case, have a conflicting duty to “We The People of the United States”, including the plaintiff in this case, to protect and defend them against such fraud. Above US attorneys have been put on notice of the fraud committed via the pleadings in this case, yet they

Wherefore,

Plaintiff respectfully requests Judicial notice of the above order as an indication of the Plaintiffs standing. She also requests expedient adjudication of prior Motion for Injunctive relief, as well as the plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which the clerk of the court has erroneously docketed together with the First Amended Complaint (pages 129-145) when the plaintiff’s Electronic Filing Code didn’t function yet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ

By:__________________________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 2 Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto, asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, as the affidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently used multiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425 used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 3 breached their duty and their Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and to defend “We, the People of the United States”. As such, they became accomplices to the above fraud and other possible criminal acts, to be fully investigated during discovery. Judge Vinson in his order states “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as possible”. The plaintiff is praying for expedient discovery, as she, as well as other doctors and other citizens need an adjudication on the issue of fraud committed by Mr. Obama in order to get into office. Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 4 PROOF OF SERVICE