Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Reconsideration Lamb v Obama

Motion for Reconsideration Lamb v Obama

Ratings: (0)|Views: 78 |Likes:
Published by Tom Lamb
Motion for Reconsideration Lamb v obama
Motion for Reconsideration Lamb v obama

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Tom Lamb on Mar 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Amended Complaint Obama- 112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Thomas A. Lamb2806 Howe Place #1Anchorage, Alaska 99517E-mail: tlamb775@aol.comTelephone: 907-306-5855
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKATHIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE
THOMAS A. LAMB a Resident of the Stateof Alaska, acting as
 pro se
,Plaintiff,vs.PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA,Defendant))))))))))))))Case No.: 3AN-12-09961 CI
Motion for Reconsideration o
f Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Clarify Notice of 
Dismissal for Failure to Serve Defendant and for Conference in Judge’s Chambers on the
Rules of Introduction of Hearsay Evidence.
Plaintiff Thomas A. Lamb (Plaintiff herein) pursuant to Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure77 (k) files this Motion for Reconsideration.
Statement of Facts
The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking the college records of the DefendantBarack Obama (Barack Obama herein) on November, 23
rd
, 2012. The amended complaint andsummons in this case were delivered to the addressee Barack Obama with The White HouseOffice indicating the documents were received on December 4th, 2012. On February 22
nd
, 2013,the Plaintiff filed a Motion to clarify the Clerk of 
Court‟
s dismissal
of the Plaintiff‟s complaint
.On March 15
th
, 2013, this Court denied the Plaintiff‟s motion
and dismissed the case.
 
 Amended Complaint Obama- 212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
All internet citations in footnote were last visited on March 24
th
, 2013.
Legal Argument
The Plaintiff herein, argues that this Court has overlooked, misapplied or failed toconsider a statute, decision or controlling federal law.
A.
 
Was the Defendant Barack Obama Properly Served Under the SupremacyClause
The United States Supreme Court in
 Maryland v. Louisiana
, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)stated that state provisions
that conflict with federal law are “without effect.”
And equally,federal procedures that involve the safety and security of The Executive Office of the President
can„t be used as a shield to make it impossible to serve a president.
1
 Lastly, the federal policy and procedures of the United States Postal Service that pertainto delivering mail to The Executive Office of the President are supreme to state provisions or state court rules, making this Court bound to the federal procedures established by federal lawsthat pertain to how the president is served.
2
 So to wit: neither the irradiation of possible anthrax nor snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stayed these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds of serving Barack Obama.If the United States Postal Service delivered the summons and complaint via restricteddelivery to Barack Obama and THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE indicated it was received, thenBarack Obama was perfectly served.
B.
 
Does the Plaintiff Have Standing Under Article 1 of the Federal Constitution
1
 
See Clinton v. Jones
, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
2
 
See
http://pe.usps.com/Archive/HTML/DMMArchive1209/S916.htm
 
 
 Amended Complaint Obama- 312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
This Court
stated “Nowh
ere in Article 1 of the Constitution is a citizen granted the rightto access the private medical, school, tax, or personnel records of another citizen, and nowhere in
Article 1 is a citizen granted the power of Congress to make such inquires.”
 This Court seems to make light of the importance of Article I to the federal constitution.That is the part of the federal constitution where
We the People
are represented in Congress andas such, an individual can initiate a Congressional inquiry if Barack Obama has committed an actof fraud.
3
 Think of a Congressional inquiry as a really big recall effort started by one person.
C.
 
Does the Plaintiff Have a Right to Know What is in the College Records of thePresident
It was our past president Thomas Jefferson who said:
 An informed citizenry is the onlytrue repository of the public will.
The Plaintiff before filing his complaint, looked at both sides of the natural born citizenarguments and weeded out the illogical and faulty arguments on both sides.The Plaintiff also informed this Court in the past and now in the present about the caseagainst U.S. Senate Candidate Joe Miller and as such, the Plaintiff crafted his complaint in thesame manner as the
 Alaska Dispatch
.The outcome from the
case against Joe Miller is:
I hold that although Mr. Miller has alegitimate expectation of privacy in those documents, Mr. Miller's right to privacy is indeedoutweighed by the public's significant interest in the background of a public figure that is
running for the U.S. Senate.”
 
 Judge Burbank 
 
4
 So the Plaintiff asks a rhetorical question; can this Court point to the cognizable injury tothe
 Alaska Dispatch
and the compelling evidence in the complaint?
5
 
3
 
See
 
http://www.zodrow.com/archives/164
 
4
 
See
 
http://www.adn.com/2010/10/23/1515937/judge-orders-miller-documents.html
 
5
 
See
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/images/media/files/news/politics/complaint-alaska-dispatch-v-fnsb.pdf 

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Jay Gatsby added this note
Checkmate!
kjreisman liked this
Brendon Guiznot liked this
Brendon Guiznot liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->