Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3 Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
4 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
5 E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

8 Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §

Plaintiff, §HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH
9 § PRESIDING
v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
10 §
Barack Hussein Obama, §MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
11 §
§
12 §
§
13 §
14 Defendant. §

15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

16 Plaintiff in this case respectfully requests a judicial notice of the order by Judge
17
Roger Vinson, Northern district of Florida, State of Florida et al v Department of
18
19 Health et al 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT. Exhibit 1.
20 Plaintiff in this case, being a Doctor of Dental Surgery, was seeking an intervener
21
status in case 10-cv-91, which was brought by attorneys of 13 states challenging
22
23 constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill H.R. 3590. While motion to intervene was not
24 granted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filed
25
their motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of the
26
27 Commerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs, this order provides an indication
28
of the plaintiff’s standing to bring forward her challenge of the H.R. 3590, noting

Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 1

 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 5

1
2
3 “Taitz contends, and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to

4 intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by this
5
act, she clearly has an interest in this action”.
6
7 Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above

8 ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action
9
challenging H.R. 3590, which to a great extend serves as an opposition to the
10
11 defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing.

12 Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to
13
lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of
14
15 expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs.

16 Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is
17
frivolous. Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible
18
19 interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient
20 Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the
21
Commerce clause, as well as on basis of Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto,
22
23 asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by
24 virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, as the
25
affidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently used
26
27 multiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425
28 used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the

Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 2

 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 5

1
2
3 state of Connecticut. US Attorneys Machen, Contreras and Burch, who have been

4 representing the defendant in this case, have a conflicting duty to “We The People of
5
the United States”, including the plaintiff in this case, to protect and defend them
6
7 against such fraud. Above US attorneys have been put on notice of the fraud

8 committed via the pleadings in this case, yet they breached their duty and their
9
Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and to defend “We, the People of the
10
11 United States”. As such, they became accomplices to the above fraud and other

12 possible criminal acts, to be fully investigated during discovery. Judge Vinson in

13
his order states “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country,
14
15 have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as possible”. The plaintiff is

16 praying for expedient discovery, as she, as well as other doctors and other citizens
17
need an adjudication on the issue of fraud committed by Mr. Obama in order to get
18
19 into office.
20 Wherefore,
21
Plaintiff respectfully requests Judicial notice of the above order as an indication of
22
23 the Plaintiffs standing. She also requests expedient adjudication of prior Motion for
24 Injunctive relief, as well as the plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which
25
the clerk of the court has erroneously docketed together with the First Amended
26
27 Complaint (pages 129-145) when the plaintiff’s Electronic Filing Code didn’t
28 function yet.

Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 3

 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
7 By:__________________________________
8 Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
9 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
10 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
11 E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PROOF OF SERVICE

28
I CERTIFY THAT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE
PLEADINGS WAS SERVED by electronic filing on 04.09.10 on
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 4
 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3 Alan Burch, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
4 555 4th str.,N.W.
5 Washington D.C. 20530
6 /s/Orly Taitz
7 Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
8 29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
9
10
11 Proposed Order

12 Judicial notice granted.

13 It is so ordered and adjudged
14
15 Honorable Royce C. Lamberth
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice 5