The undersigned is the only attorney, who has the bravery of character topursue
not only the issue of Mr. Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency, but also
information provided by two licensed investigators, showing that according toreputable databases
Mr. Obama has used 39 different social securitynumbers including the social security numbers of the deceasedindividuals
. This information is an indication of multiple felonies committedby the sitting president, and the undersigned believes that she was targeted anddefamatory statements were used in order to keep her silent, to endanger herlicense and prevent her from proceeding on the above issues. The undersignedis deeply concerned about the fact that the court chose to include in the orderslanderous ex-parte communications, while completely ignoring the aboveevidence against the defendant, which show a tremendous likelihood of success on a RICO claim.10.
The court has commented on the plaintiff
inability to file a full pledgedRICO complaint, calling it inexcusable. The court apparently forgot the factthat the plaintiffs have asked for discovery in order to obtain sufficientinformation for complete RICO complaint.
The court has denied all requestsfor discovery, therefore making it impossible for the plaintiffs to submitfully pleaded RICO cause of action.
The plaintiffs request discovery in orderto submit a properly plead RICO complaint or in the alternative a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on RICO cause of action.11.
The court relies on Ashwander vs Tenn Valley, as the reason to assert that ithas no jurisdiction. This is a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. As
Ashwander states “If a case can be decided on either of two g
rounds, oneinvolving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory
construction of general law, the Court will decide only the latter”.
The fact of the matter is that there is no law or statute,that provides definition of theNatural Born Citizen clause. The defense has argued a definition completelydifferent from the definition submitted by the plaintiffs, therefore in theabsence of any law or statute providing such definition Aswander actuallydictates that the issue
needs to be decided based on the Constitution
Central district court of California clearly has a right to interpret theConstitution
, so based on the courts
the case has to be
adjudicated. “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be
attended, we must decide it, if it is brought before us. We have no more rightto decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which
is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution”
Supreme Court justice John Marshall in Cohen v Virginia 19 US 264 (1821).12.
The undersigned counsel requests the court to strike out of the orderunsupported, prejudicial, demeaning and defamatory language p8, line 22-24insinuating that the military plaintiffs in this action are cowards and writing:
“The court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by
military officers to avoid deployment. The court has a word for such a refusalto follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the
issue to the military to resolve”. The undersigned has submitted to this court a
letter from Captain Crawford, Legal Counsel to Admiral Malin, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, which clearly stated that the commander in Chief isconsidered a civilian and there is nothing military can do regarding hiseligibility. Based on this response from the military the plaintiffs havebrought this matter to the Federal court to ascertain legitimacy and allegianceof the Commander in Chief, who is not a part of the military. The ordercompletely misstated the complaint and standing justification. Recent terroristincident at Fort Hood has given this question paramount importance. Thisorder has advocated blind obedience by the members of the military. If
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 90 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 10