OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Draft of Motion to reinstate case in Indiana due to flagrant error by the court in motion to dismiss

Posted on | June 24, 2012 | 5 Comments

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ

Plaintiff Pro SE

29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

ph 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7687

orly.taitz@gmail.com

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

MARION COUNTY

 

 

                                                               

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ                                 )       Case No. 49D 141 203MI 1 2046

 KARL SWIHART                                           )

EDWARD KESLER                                        )          

BOB KERN

FRANK WEYL                                                )

V                                                                       )

ELECTIONS COMMISSION                          )

 

SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIANA

 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT/ORDER UNDER RULE 60 DUE TO MISTAKE BY THE COURT

 

Comes now Plaintiff Pro Se  Dr Orly Taitz, ESq (Hereinafter Taitz) and seeks a relief from the order to dismiss the case due to failure to follow requests, due to the fact that the order represents a complete impossibility and an error, as the court never made any requests and there was never any failure to follow requests, as there were never any requests. For this reason Taitz demands immediate reinstatement of the above captioned case as it is the most important case of national security and deals with high ranking state officials aiding and abetting elections fraud and forgery committed by candidate for the US Presidency Barack Hussein Obama.

 

ARGUMENT

 

1. On June 12, 2012 Honorable Judge S. K. Reid issued an order “Court orders case dismissal for failing to follow requests ”  Exhibit 1 Civil Case Results, Entry Detail 06.12.2012

2. Exhibit 2,   Case Activity Report from 06.20. 2012 shows that there were never any Requests made by the court.

3.  Exhibit 3  Affidavit by attorney Orly Taitz, Plaintiff Pro Se  in the above captioned case attesting to the fact that she never received any requests from the court, there are no requests by the court on the docket, and there was never any failure to follow requests, as there were never any requests. Rule 60 (B) (1) provides for relief from Judgment/order due to mistake.

Rule 60. Relief from judgment or order

(A) Clerical mistakes. Of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders, clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the trial court at any time before the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record is filed under Appellate Rule 8. After filing of the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record and during an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected with leave of the court on appeal.

(B) Mistake–Excusable neglect–Newly discovered evidence–Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) any ground for a motion to correct error, including without limitation newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a motion to correct errors under Rule 59;

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) entry of default or judgment by default was entered against such party who was served only by publication and who was without actual knowledge of the action and judgment, order or proceedings;

(5) except in the case of a divorce decree, the record fails to show that such party was represented by a guardian or other representative, and if the motion asserts and such party proves that

(a) at the time of the action he was an infant or incompetent person, and

(b) he was not in fact represented by a guardian or other representative, and

(c) the person against whom the judgment, order or proceeding is being avoided procured the judgment with notice of such infancy or incompetency, and, as against a successor of such person, that such successor acquired his rights therein with notice that the judgment was procured against an infant or incompetent, and

(d) no appeal or other remedies allowed under this subdivision have been taken or made by or on behalf of the infant or incompetent person, and

(e) the motion was made within ninety [90] days after the disability was removed or a guardian was appointed over his estate, and

(f) the motion alleges a valid defense or claim;

(6) the judgment is void;

(7) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or

(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).

The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time for reasons (5), (6), (7), and (8), and not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (4). A movant filing a motion for reasons (1), (2), (3), (4), and (8) must allege a meritorious claim or defense. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding or for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

(C) Appeal–Change of venue. A ruling or order of the court denying or granting relief, in whole or in part, by motion under subdivision (B) of this rule shall be deemed a final judgment, and an appeal may be taken therefrom as in the case of a judgment. No change of venue in such cases shall be taken from the judge or county except for cause shown by affidavit.

(D) Hearing and relief granted. In passing upon a motion allowed by subdivision (B) of this rule the court shall hear any pertinent evidence, allow new parties to be served with summons, allow discovery, grant relief as provided under Rule 59 or otherwise as permitted by subdivision (B) of this rule.

(E) Infants, incompetents, and governmental organizations. Except as otherwise provided herein, this rule shall apply to infants, incompetents, and governmental organizations. The time for seeking relief against a judgment, order or proceeding allowed or recognized under subdivision (B) of this rule or any other statute shall not be tolled or extended as to such persons.

 

Due to the fact that a clear error of fact was committed by the court, and there were never any requests from the court  and there was never any failure to follow any requests as there were never any requests, the court should reverse an erroneous order of dismissal and reinstate the case. The reinstatement of the case should be done immediately as this is the case of national importance and paramount to national security. Defendants in this case, Secretary of State of Indiana Connie Lawson and members of Elections Commission breached their fiduciary duty to the petitioners, acted negligently and with malice and committed fraud by allowing Barack Hussein Obama, a foreign national, who is using a name that is not legally his, using a forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate and fraudulently obtained Social Security number, which was not assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS,     to be a candidate on the ballot in the State of Indiana. The actions by the defendants are so egregious that they border on treason. If this court does not correct a clear error of fact and does not reinstate this case immediately, this court will become complicit in the crimes committed by the defendants and will become complicit to treason by allowing a foreign national with forged identification papers on the ballot in the state of Indiana.

CONCLUSION

Due to flagrant error of fact above captioned case should be reinstated immediately.

DECLARATION OF ORLY TAITZ

I, Orly Taitz, am a licensed attorney in the state of California and admitted to all courts in the state of California, 9th circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of the United States, International Criminal Bar Panel in Haague  and pro hac vice in multiple courts around the country. I am licensed for 10 years.

I attest under the penalty of perjury

1. I never received any requests from the court

2. After the order of dismissal was entered, I checked the chronological docket and there are no requests from the court on the docket either.

3. I never failed to follow any requests as there were never any requests from the court.  My co-plaintiffs did not fail to follow any requests, as the docket shows no requests from the court whatsoever, either to me or any other plaintiffs.

4. In my professional opinion as a licensed attorney, who is not licensed in Indiana, but licensed in multiple other courts, order of dismissal represents a clear error of fact, which is exacerbated by the fact that this is a matter of national importance dealing with the most egregious fraud, forgery and possibly reason committed by defendants by allowing a foreign national Barack Hussein Obama to be on the ballot in the State of indiana in clear code violation by using a last name, which is not legally his and all forged identification papers.

5. In my professional opinion of a licensed attorney with 10 years of experience and admitted in multiple courts (not in Indiana) including multiple Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court of the United States, the order to dismiss needs to be reversed immediately due to flagrant error and due to national importance.

I attest to above under the penalty of perjury. Declarant further says naught.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ   

06.24.2012

 

PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

MARION COUNTY

 

 

                                                               

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ                                 )       Case No. 49D 141 203MI 1 2046

 KARL SWIHART                                           )

EDWARD KESLER                                        )          

BOB KERN

FRANK WEYL                                                )

V                                                                       )

ELECTIONS COMMISSION                          )

 

SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIANA

 

Under Rule 60B(1) due to flagrant error of fact Case Taitz et al v Elections commission et al is ordered to be reinstated immediately

Signed____________________________________________

Honorable judge S.K.Reid

Dated

_________________________________________________

Category: Events, HOT ITEMS!, Latest News, Legal Actions, LINKS, Obama Fraud Gate, orly taitz attorney, Orly Taitz civil rights leader, Orly Taitz Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz Obama social Security number, Orly Taitz ObamaFraudGate, Other Criminal or Suspicious Activities, Uncategorized

Comments

5 Responses to “Draft of Motion to reinstate case in Indiana due to flagrant error by the court in motion to dismiss”

  1. Bruriah Sarah
    June 25th, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

    More stonewalling…I wonder if a judge can be challenged if he does not uphold justice. Another words can another judge be appointed if this judge is biased against the case?

  2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 25th, 2012 @ 5:08 pm

    in 4 and a half years I have not seen one honest judge on these cases filed by over 40 attorneys and hundreds of plaintiffs. We have a worse case of dictatorship than in most Banana republics. Corruption is unprecedented. It will blow up. People will go to prison for this

  3. Jim Fields
    June 26th, 2012 @ 12:00 am

    We the people are paying the bills. Throw the crooked judges in prison, who going to miss them?

  4. roadburner
    June 26th, 2012 @ 1:04 am

    question – if your president is powerful enough and rich enough to threaten and pay off the whole judicial service, the whole hawaii DOH, both congress and the senate, pay millions (allegedly) to hide his past and cover up past misdeeds, don´t you think that if he was having forged documents made that he could find a decent forger?

    and if he did have the hawaii DOH in his pocket, why have forgeries made when he could have them issue the real thing?

    i look forward to your expaination, because personally i don´t understand the logic behind your aguement.

  5. Thomas
    June 26th, 2012 @ 5:02 am

    Mrs. Taitz, as you mention “Prison”, I had to say this… Here in Rapid City South Dakota, I.C.E. (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) is currently Building a 28 Thousand sq. ft. building to house and hold Illegals.
    Personally, I think they have other ideas for this Jail because there are NOT that many Illegals here.

Leave a Reply