Proposed order to the ex-Parte Application to Strike Motion to Dismiss

Activity in Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al Proposed Order

7 Responses to “Proposed order filed per request of the Deputy for Judge England”

1. Wolf Whissle
   April 16th, 2013 @ 10:40 am

   Excellent move! Now it’s official and cannot be ignored.

   Dr. Taitz, you are so intelligent – I am so glad you are on our side.

   And so beautiful, too. I know it is hard for pretty girls to be taken seriously for their intellect, but you are the whole package!

2. BOPE
   April 16th, 2013 @ 10:43 am

   April 4/16/13 My ~33rd email to PIO

   Anyone receive response from Supreme Court (PIO)Public Information Office…
   https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contactus.aspx

   NEED RESPONSE: DAY 103

   I still have not gotten a response to the many emails beginning in Jan 4th till today..I have sent for the Public Information Office & asked the Webmaster on many occasions to forward to the Supreme Court of the United States of America..

   The pending Docket 12A606 has not been addressed since 5 packages were sent back and not given to the justices. No one has acknowledged if ALL the justices read the packet and what is the verdict.

   As an american citizen I have the right to have redress for any government agency that is supposed to represent my needs as a citizen of the United States of America.

   The fact I have not received one reply in 103 days is showing utter contempt for a Native Born American Citizen of the United States of America.

   I demand a response from all 9 JUSTICES for why my emails have not been responded too and why they have not provided feedback to the american citizens why they are allowing sworn affidavits information to not be processed by the courts of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

   IT IS THEIR SWORN DUTY TO DO THIS… FOR EXAMPLE : TO ALLOW A BOMBING TO TAKE PLACE AND THEN AFTERWARDS LOOK THE OTHERWAY WHEN THE DATA SHOWS WHO COMMITED THE CRIME IS AN ATROCITY IN ITSELF.

   WAITING…Please forward this information the the Supreme Court of the United States of America..

   BE HONORABLE AND UPRIGHT OR JUST STEP ASIDE AND RETIRE IN DISGRACE AND SHAME.

   Dear Judge England,
   Please find attached a required proposed order for the Ex-Parte Application to Strike the Motion to Dismiss.
   respectfully,
   /s/ Orly Taitz, counsel for Plaintiffs
   cc Edward Olsen
   cc George Waters
   IN THE US DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

   GRINOLS ET AL ) Case 12-cv-02997
   PLAINTIFFS )
   V )
   ELECTORAL COLLEGE ET AL )
   DEFENDANTS )

   Order
   Plaintiffs filed an ex-parte application to strike Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
   Plaintiffs argued that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Motion to Dismiss by the Department of Justice/ U.S. Attorneys’ Office due to the fact that the U.S. Attorney’ office does not represent any parties in this case. Plaintiffs state that in the motion to dismiss the Department of Justice already admitted that it does not represent the electoral College, as the Electoral College is not a Federal agency. It does not represent Vice President Biden, as Vice President is not a defendant in the Amended Complaint. They do not represent Barack Obama as Barack Obama was NOT sued as a Federal Employee and finally they do not represent the U.S. Congress, as members of the U.S. Congress sought representation by a different attorney, General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally according to the sworn declaration of Plaintiffs’ Attorney Taitz multiple members of the U.S. Congress advised her that the Department of Justice did not notify them of the representation and intended Motion to dismiss and did not obtain their consent prior to filing a motion to dismiss this case on their behalf.
   Plaintiffs also argued that current representation constitute an impermissible conflict of interest between the attorney, here the Department of Justice, and the alleged client. As the premise of the law suit is use by Barack Obama of forged IDs in order to get into the position of the U.S. President by fraud, the interests of the alleged Client, U.S.Congress and the Department of Justice/U.S. Attorneys working for Barack Obama are diametrically opposite, which created an impermissible conflict of interest under the Rules of Ethics by the California Bar association Rule 3-300 and 3-310. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that though the Department of Justice never placed the U.S. Congress on notice and did not seek the consent of the U.S. Congress in filing this motion to dismiss on behalf of the U.S. . Congress, in case this motion is granted and later the U.S. Congress seeks to impeach and remove from office Barack Obama for his use of forged and stolen IDs, Obama might use this motion as a basis for evading impeachment on Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel.
   Further Plaintiffs argue that the State Defendants are represented by the Attorney General of California Kamala Harris, who is a major fundraiser for Barack Obama. Additionally Barack Obama is a fundraiser for Kamala Harris. Moreover, close relative of Harris, her brother in law Tony West, is a major bundler for Obama, who bundled reported 65 million dollars for Obama’s campaign and was rewarded by Obama with the #2 position in the U.S. Department of Justice. As such Plaintiffs argue that Harris had an ethical obligation to report to this court a conflict of interests. Harris did not do so.
   The court agrees that indeed there is a conflict of interest. The court grants a Motion to Strike. U.S. Congress will be given 60 days to advise the court of the counsel of their choice and file a response to the First Amended Complaint by their counsel of choice. State Defendants will be given 21 days to do the same.
   So ordered.
   ___________________________________________________________________
   U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England

3. Proposed order filed per request of the Deputy for Judge England | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire | Lindajoyadams's Blog
   April 16th, 2013 @ 10:44 am

   […] via Proposed order filed per request of the Deputy for Judge England | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire. […]

4. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   April 16th, 2013 @ 10:51 am

   I know that the person, who wrote this e-mail is an obot

5. George Washington
   April 16th, 2013 @ 11:31 am

   To me, the order purposed by the illegal defense team looks like something that a very scared judge might illegally use to hide behind.

   I’m hoping that this Judge finds the courage to do the constitutionally correct thing.

   He a Judge, know what’s constitutionally correct.

   So he’ll really will have no good excuse to rule in favor of this unlawful defense team.

   I hope he doesn’t stoop so low that he uses either some kind of lame brain worn out “NO STANDING RULING” or “STATUES OF LIMITATION RULING”.

   Plain and simple this Judge should just rule on the given facts in this matter, and both sides know exactly what they are.

6. George Washington
   April 16th, 2013 @ 11:40 am

   To me, the order purposed by the illegal defense team looks like something that a very scared judge might illegally use to hide behind.

   I’m hoping that this Judge finds the courage to do the constitutionally correct thing.

   He’s a Judge, so he know what’s constitutionally correct.

   So he’ll really will have no good excuse to rule in favor of this unlawful defense team.

   I hope he doesn’t stoop so low, that he uses either some kind of lame brain worn out “NO STANDING RULING” or “STATUES OF LIMITATION RULING”.

   Plain and simple this Judge should just rule on the given facts in this matter, and both sides know exactly what they are.

7. Bruriah Sarah
   April 16th, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

   Dr. Taitz

   Kol kavod!!!! Great job!!!! Things are moving in the right direction.

   At the same time, the corruption in the DOJ is astounding. They probably will come up with some reason to sidestep your case.

   They probably have a few maneuvers – and it may not be limited to these:

   a. ignore – which they tend to do.
   b. come up an argument to try to destroy your case -but since your evidence is pretty solid – the only thing they might try to do is to challenge your evidence – still hard to do – but they might want to try.
   c. Bribe the judge to dismiss or bungle the case in their favor.

Leave a Reply