• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVETO CERTIFY QUESTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND NOTICE OF RULE 41(a)(1) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTSTWO AND THREE
-
 
1 -
 
DR. ORLEY TAITZFOR THE PLAINTIFFS26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691(949) 683-5411E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
Dr. Orly TaitzAttorney-at-LawOrly Taitz Law Offices26302 La Paz, Suite 211Mission Viejo, California 92691Telephone: (949) 683-5411E-Mail:dr_taitz@yahoo.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISIONAlan Keyes, Ph.D., Willey S. Drake, and §Markham Robinson, §Plaintiffs, §
Civil Action No.:
§
SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
v. §§Barack H. Obama, et al., §Defendants. §MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR INTHE ALTERNATIVE TO CERTIFY QUESTION FOR APPEAL 28 U.S.C. §1292,AND
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(A)(1) OFCOUNTS TWO AND THREE
(AND ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS BESIDESBARACK H. OBAMA IN DEFAULT)On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, this Court’s Deputy Clerk A. DeAvila issuedthe second Notice of Deficiency: Default to the above-designated counsel forPlaintiffs issued within ten days of the first Notice of Deficiency regarding Proof of Service (Docket Repot Document 8) signed on June 1, 2009, by Deputy Clerk R. LaChapelle. And then on Friday, June 12, 2009, this Court filed and entered a minuteorder “Extending Order to Show Cause, and Finding as Moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 15 Filed 06/14/2009 Page 1 of 11
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVETO CERTIFY QUESTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND NOTICE OF RULE 41(a)(1) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTSTWO AND THREE
-
 
2 -
 
DR. ORLEY TAITZFOR THE PLAINTIFFS26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691(949) 683-5411E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
Clarification.” The June 12, 2009, order stated, “Plaintiffs are directed to Rule 4(i),which addresses service upon the United States and its agencies, corporation,officers, or employees. In light of plaintiffs’ efforts, the Order to Show Cause isextended until July 13, 2009, to permit plaintiffs additional time to properly effectservice pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(i) as to all Defendants.”
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Count I (for Declaratory Judgment regarding Barack H. Obama’squalifications) are the only portion of Plaintiffs’ original Complaint which Plaintiffswish to pursue at the present time, so that service on the other defendants isirrelevant, and moot, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) Plaintiffs’ Voluntarily DismissCounts II and III of their Complaint so as to rely exclusively on their right to pursuea judgment by default against Barack H. Obama in Count I.
RULE 4(e) is the Sole Appropriate Service Required
With regard to the sole remaining Defendant Barack H. Obama, who is theonly Defendant actually served within the first 120 days of filing this complaint thesole relevant portion of Rule 4(i)(3) states as follows:
Officer or Employee Sued Individually.
To serve a United StatesOfficer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act oromission occurring in connection with duties performed on the UnitedStates’ behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in anofficial capacity), a party must serve the United States and also servethe officer or employee under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g).
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 15 Filed 06/14/2009 Page 2 of 11
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVETO CERTIFY QUESTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND NOTICE OF RULE 41(a)(1) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTSTWO AND THREE
-
 
3 -
 
DR. ORLEY TAITZFOR THE PLAINTIFFS26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691(949) 683-5411E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
Plaintiffs do not contend that Barack H. Obama (whose pseudonyms listed instyle of case incorporated by reference) is either a minor or that he cannot befound within any judicial district of the United States, so neither 4(f) nor 4(g)are relevant.Ironically enough, Plaintiffs do precisely contend that by serving theMail Clerk of Department of Justice on February 10, 2009, as indisputablyproved in the affidavit of Mary Ann Kiernan already on file with this court,Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(c) 4(i)(3).However, in this cause of action, Plaintiffs have NOT sued Barack H.Obama (pseudonyms incorporated by reference) “in [his] individual capacityfor an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on theUnited States’ behalf” (and in fact, the suit was filed on the same day asBarack H. Obama’s inauguration as President). Rather, Plaintiffs are suing theDefendant Barack H. Obama for a declaratory judgment concerning hisqualifications to assume the title and assume the office of President of theUnited States, and in particular regarding his duty to disclose issuesconcerning his pre-Inauguration life which either qualified or disqualified himfrom being Inaugurated. So there is no justification for requiring service of the United States under Rule 4(i)(3).
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 15 Filed 06/14/2009 Page 3 of 11
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...