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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Orly Taitz v Obama QW Judicial Notice 4-9-10

Orly Taitz v Obama QW Judicial Notice 4-9-10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
Published by Juan del Sur
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice

Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the Commerce clause, as well as on basis of Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto, asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, as the affidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently used multiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425 used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the state of Connecticut.
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice

Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the Commerce clause, as well as on basis of Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto, asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, as the affidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently used multiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425 used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the state of Connecticut.

More info:

Published by: Juan del Sur on Apr 09, 2010
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

10/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice
1
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §Plaintiff, §HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH§ PRESIDINGv. §
Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
 §Barack Hussein Obama, §MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE§§§§§Defendant. §
PLAINTIFF
S
 
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 Plaintiff in this case respectfully requests a judicial notice of the order by JudgeRoger Vinson, Northern district of Florida, State of Florida et al v Department of Health et al 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT. Exhibit 1.Plaintiff in this case, being a Doctor of Dental Surgery, was seeking an intervener status in case 10-cv-91, which was brought by attorneys of 13 states challengingconstitutionality of the Healthcare Bill H.R. 3590. While motion to intervene was notgranted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filedtheir motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of theCommerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs, this order provides an indicationof the plaintiff 
s standing to bring forward her challenge of the H.R. 3590, noting
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 5
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice
2
Taitz contends, and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion tointervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by thisact, she clearly has an interest in this action
.Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, aboveruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her actionchallenging H.R. 3590, which to a great extend serves as an opposition to thedefendant
s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing.Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama
s eligibility due tolack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs.Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue isfrivolous. Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangibleinterest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590
PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act
can do so on both the basis of violation of theCommerce clause, as well as on basis of 
Common
 
law Fraud and Quo Warranto
,asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency byvirtue of 
fraud and concealment of all of the
 
original vital records
, as theaffidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently usedmultiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 5
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Taitz v Obama. Motion for Judicial Notice
3state of Connecticut. US Attorneys Machen, Contreras and Burch, who have beenrepresenting the defendant in this case, have a conflicting duty to
We The People of the United States
, including the plaintiff in this case, to protect and defend themagainst such fraud. Above US attorneys have been put on notice of the fraudcommitted via the pleadings in this case, yet they
breached their
 
duty and theirOath of Office to defend the Constitution and to defend
We, the People of theUnited States
. As such, they became accomplices to the above fraud and other  possible criminal acts, to be fully investigated during discovery. Judge Vinson inhis order states
The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country,have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as possible
. The plaintiff is praying for expedient discovery, as she, as well as other doctors and other citizensneed an adjudication on the issue of fraud committed by Mr. Obama in order to getinto office.Wherefore,Plaintiff respectfully requests Judicial notice of the above order as an indication of the Plaintiffs standing. She also requests expedient adjudication of prior Motion for Injunctive relief, as well as the plaintiff 
s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, whichthe clerk of the court has erroneously docketed together with the First AmendedComplaint (pages 129-145) when the plaintiff 
s Electronic Filing Code didn
tfunction yet.
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 19 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 5

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)//-->