Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
KEYES v OBAMA - 79 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Sever PLAINTIFFS filed by PLAINTIFFS Markham Robinson, Wiley S Drake. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Wiley Drake in Support of Motion for Severance, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 10 in Support of Motion for Severance, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 1-9 in Support of Motion for Severance, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Gary Kreep in Support of Motion for Severance, # 5 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Kreep, Gary) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

KEYES v OBAMA - 79 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Sever PLAINTIFFS filed by PLAINTIFFS Markham Robinson, Wiley S Drake. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Wiley Drake in Support of Motion for Severance, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 10 in Support of Motion for Severance, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 1-9 in Support of Motion for Severance, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Gary Kreep in Support of Motion for Severance, # 5 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Kreep, Gary) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 552 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Oct 02, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

10/01/2009

pdf

text

original

 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
PLAITIFFS’ MOTIO FOR SEVERACE OR I THE ALTERATIVELEAVE TO FILE A AMEDED COMPLAIT
UITED STATES JUSTICE 
 
FOUDATIO 
GARY G. KREEP; SB 066482932 “D” Street, Suite 2(Email: usjf@usjf.net)Ramona, California 92065Tel: (760) 788-6624Fax: (760) 788-6414
Attorney for Plaintiffs,Dr. Wiley S. Drake andMarkham Robinson 
UITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CETRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORIASATA AA (SOUTHER) DIVISIO
CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT,et al.,Plaintiffs,v.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, etal.,Defendants)CIVIL ACTION NO:SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
PLAITIFFS’ MOTIO FOR SEVERACE OR I THEALTERATIVE LEAVE TO FILE AAMEDED COMPLAIT
DATE: October 5, 2009TIME: 8:30 a.m.CTRM: 9DHon. David O. Carter )))))))))))
ITRODUCTIO
Plaintiffs, Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as“PLAINTIFFS”), move this Court for a severance from all other Plaintiffs in thiscase or, in the alternative, for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint(hereinafter referred to as “SAC”). This motion is timely filed.PLAINTIFFS believe that extraneous matters, not relevant to these proceedings, have been filed by Dr. Taitz herein, in both the initial Complaint andin the First Amended Complaint (hereinafter referred to as “FAC”). In order to
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 79 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 1 of 8
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
PLAITIFFS’ MOTIO FOR SEVERACE OR I THE ALTERATIVELEAVE TO FILE A AMEDED COMPLAIT
expedite a resolution on the merits of this constitutionally critical issue, it isnecessary for PLAINTIFFS to focus on the Constitutional issues that are at the heartof this dispute. Towards that end, if the Court will not grant severance,PLAINTIFFS move the Court for leave to file SAC.Dr. Taitz has argued for this Court to grant her request for a quo warrantomotion. This request is not irrelevant to the Constitutional issues raised byPLAINTIFFS.Further, Dr. Taitz has dedicated a large portion of both her OriginalComplaint and FAC to the issue of her Freedom of Information Act requests.Regardless as to whether her FOIA requests had previously been denied, suchrequests have no bearing on this case, nor on the Constitutional issues relevant tothe instant proceeding, and, as such, only serve to complicate the issues raised byPLAINTIFFS.Likewise, the Civil Rights arguments raised by Dr. Taitz do not have any bearing on PLAINTIFFS’ claims against Defendant Obama, and, instead, have onlydetracted from the relevant issues raised herein.In addition, PLAINTIFFS only have a constitutional claim against DefendantObama. PLAINTIFFS take no issue with any of the other Defendants in this action,nor has any cause of action been made by Dr. Taitz against the other Defendants.Thus, due to the fact that none of the other Defendant's have anything to do withthis case other than being named as Defendants by Dr. Taitz, PLAINTIFFS do notwish to pursue any claims against any Defendant other than Barack Obama.Finally, PLAINTIFFS do not believe that Dr. Taitz will take any action hereinother than to expand upon extraneous issues, such as discussed above, in directcontradiction to Judge Carter's instructions for her to narrow the issues to the mostrelevant herein, and, as a result, further delay and cloud resolution on the merits.
////////
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 79 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 2 of 8
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283
PLAITIFFS’ MOTIO FOR SEVERACE OR I THE ALTERATIVELEAVE TO FILE A AMEDED COMPLAITREQUEST FOR SEVERACE
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as“FRCP”), “On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” FRCP 21. This severance is not limited to issues of misjoinder, as theCourt may sever not only parties, but also claims. “The court may also sever anyclaim against a party.” FRCP 21. Therefore, PLAINTIFFS hereby move this Courtfor severance from all other Plaintiffs in this action on the grounds thatPLAINTIFFS’ rights will be adversely affected by continued affiliation with co-Plaintiffs’ counsel. The specific grounds for severance are as follows:1Dr. Taitz initially filed this case in PLAINTIFFS’ names, withoutinforming PLAINTIFFS that she was doing so.
See
Exhibit 1.2Because Dr. Taitz filed this case without PLAINTIFFS permission, and because PLAINTIFFS were not convinced of Dr. Taitz’ competence,PLAINTIFFS sought to retain Gary Kreep to represent them in thismatter. However, Dr. Taitz refused to sign the Substitution of Attorney provided to her by PLAINTIFFS, and, instead, filed a notice of dismissal on PLAINTIFFS’ behalf. She therein mislead the Court,claiming that PLAINTIFFS personally told her that they wanted to bedismissed from the case, when they, in fact, neither wanted out of thecase, nor spoke to Dr. Taitz about being dismissed from the case.
See
Exhibit 1.3This case was filed on January 20, 2009. However, Dr. Taitz failed to prosecute this case for over seven months, due to her failure to make proper service on the Defendants. This failure to prosecute promptedthis Court to order Dr. Taitz to show cause why this case should not bedismissed for lack of prosecution on May 12, 2009.
See
Exhibit 2.The Court issued a second order to show cause why this case shouldnot be dismissed for lack of prosecution on May 27, 2009.
See
Exhibit
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 79 Filed 10/01/2009 Page 3 of 8

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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