Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
__________________
CSB #223433
Ste 100
ph 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orly.taitz@gmail.com
Table of Content
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................p3
A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter's refusal to rule on the
motion for default judgment against Obama ..............................................p4
B. Judge Carter acted with bias and abuse of judicial discretion in including
C. . Carter showed bias and egregious abuse of judicial discretion and allowed
improperly demanded for Obama to be served yet again through the U.S.
attorney's office....................................................................................................p13
Eligibility Justiciable...........................................................................................p14
Introduction
As the Appellants are limited to only 15 pages in the reply brief, the appellants
will limit the reply to the most egregious issues of bias, abuse of judicial
discretion, improper influence, and possibly criminal cover up exhibited in this
case, particularly in regards to the fact that an attorney for the defendant's law
firm, acted as a law clerk for the presiding judge. This case was dealing with
fraud, perpetrated by Barack Obama prior to becoming U.S. President. Obama's
personal attorney and White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner for
Perkins Coie. Attorney-law clerk, drafting the opinion to dismiss the case, was also
an employee of Perkins Coie.
A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter's refusal to rule on the
motion for default judgment against Obama
Most important issue in this case, is that Judge Carter's actions in relation to the
motion for default were improper, represented bias, abuse of judicial discretion
statement: " It is submitted that the court’s decision to deny entry of default
The U.S. attorneys know that Judge Carter (hereinafter Carter) NEVER denied
he first hearing was for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Therefore Judge Carter had
In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A
default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if
represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has
appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared
personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served
with written notice of the application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court
may conduct hearings or make referrals preserving any federal statutory right to
a jury trial when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:
So all he was empowered to do at that hearing was either grant the default
make referrals when to make a judgment, it needs to establish the truth of any
set a trial date. As a result, the government had NO RIGHT to file a motion to
As the transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing shows, the Plaintiff's attorney Dr.
Orly Taitz repeatedly requested for Judge Carter to rule on her motion for default
judgment, simply rule one way or another, grant it or deny it. He never did.
Clearly Obama was served with the process, as he sent an Assistant U.S. attorney
to represent him. Instead of ruling one way or another, to grant or deny the notion
for default, judge Carter improperly applied pressure and duress on plaintiff's
attorney and demanded that she serve Obama the way "government wants". He
never stated, that she did not serve him correctly, as he knew that she served him
on Inauguration Day, before he did anything as a president. She served him with a
law suit, dealing with fraud, that he committed before getting into office, in
order to satisfy his personal ego and in order to get into office. Judge Carter
knew, that Taitz served Obama properly and that Obama was in default in that he
never furnished an answer, so Judge Carter simply decided to act with bias and
defraud the Plaintiff's Counsel and the Plaintiffs by promising that if Taitz serves
Obama yet again, the way government wants, he would hear the case on its Merits.
During the course of the hearing Carter repeatedly stated that this court has
jurisdiction and the case would be heard on its merits, he stated that this is an
important case for the country and the military, that it should not be decided on
shouldn't be there (in the White House). (Appendix to Appellant's Brief, Clerk's
Taitz had no other option but to rely on the Honesty and Honor of a Federal Judge.
Instead, Judge Carter defrauded her and her clients. He did precisely what he
jurisdiction and to add insult to injury, for good measure, he added slanderous
statements about the plaintiffs and Taitz in order to demoralize the Plaintiffs and to
B. Judge Carter acted with bias and abuse of judicial discretion in including
Defendants' claim Plaintiffs' assertion that Carter's actions showed bias 'are
frivolous". Let's analyze , how is it frivolous? Carter included in his final order a
reference to some letter, which was not part of the record, and stated that he was
concerned about Taitz suborning perjury. After this slanderous order came out
opportunity to prove in the hearing that it was malicious and egregious slander and
defamation of character and that she never suborned perjury and that Judge Carter
his final order. If Carter was genuinely concerned with suborning perjury, he
would have scheduled such hearing. He never did it, as he knew, that there was no
his final order a slanderous accusation against the Plaintiff's counsel with a clear
goal to assassinate the character of an attorney, who had plaintiffs with the
strongest standing and who brought the strongest charges and strongest evidence,-
against Obama. Carter, in essence, was aiding and abetting Obama in commission
of this massive fraud upon the citizens of this country, and he did it in a
counsel.
Let's imagine for a moment that the shoe is on the other foot. Let's imagine, that
Carter makes a slanderous accusation about the U.S. Attorneys Birotte, West and
DeJute. Let's say he included in his order a statement that he is concerned about
Birotte and West and DeJute murdering children and raping women. Would they
still think that there is no bias and no abuse of judicial discretion in such actions of
a judge?
Let's imagine for a moment unthinkable, let's imagine that this court decides that
there was no bias and no abuse of judicial discretion and this court decides to deny
the appeal, and as a next step Taitz files a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the
Supreme Court and she files a criminal complaint with the Inspector General and
with the Judicial Committees of both the House of Representatives and Senate.
Let's imagine, that while the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committees are
Judge Carter and the judges of this Honorable court of murdering children and
raping women. Let's imagine for a moment that the Supreme Court of the United
States and the Judicial Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate
SCOTUS and Judicial Committees issue an opinion, that they are concerned about
Federal Judge Carter and the judges of the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals
murdering children and raping women. Would the judges of this court be amused?
Would your honors feel that it is unbiased, for a court or a judicial committee to
issue an opinion and include slanderous accusations without any shred of proof,
Not only did Carter's actions showed extreme bias and abuse of judicial discretion,
those actions also showed extreme malice towards the Plaintiffs and their counsel.
Not long ago Judge Bobby DeLauter was convicted of public corruption for giving
a judgment to a party, who might help him get into a higher court. Clearly giving a
decision in favor of the sitting president will help one get into a higher court. Not
only did Carter act with bias against the plaintiffs who challenged the President, he
acted with malice in assassinating the character of the plaintiff's attorney, he did it
without any proof and without any hearing, with a clear goal of helping the
Plaintiff, most powerful man in the world, President of the United States.
If Carter's actions in relation to the very first motion, i.e. Motion for the Default
judgment were improper, than all the other motions were irrelevant and the
presence of the U.S. attorney's office in this case is improper and impermissible.
C. Carter showed bias and egregious abuse of judicial discretion and allowed
In the beginning of October, 2009 Carter hired as his law clerk for 6 months
clerkship, one Siddharth Velamoor, attorney from Perkins Coie, a Defendant
Obama's law firm. Senior partner in Perkins Coie is Robert Bauer, who is not only
a personal attorney for Barack Obama, but also a White House Counsel. (Appendix
F-Wikipedia Bio of Robert Bauer, showing him as a partner of Perkins Coie,
Obama's personal attorney and White House Counsel). It is impossible to imagine
a bigger case of conflict of interest and improper influence. Additionally,
Velamoor's biography shows similar pattern of obfuscation of records, cover up
and creation of fraudulent records as Obama’s. A Siddharth Velamoor page was
created on an information site WikiBin. (Appendix E). This page addressed public
concerns. "The hiring of Velamoor created some public speculation and
controversy because Perkins Coie previously represented the defendant, Barack
Obama, giving the appearance of a possible conflict of interest."id. This article
was designed to calm the public concerns and it was done by planting fraudulent
information. It claimed that Velamoor was a Columbia University graduate and
was placed over a year prior to his hire. Currently, going to this web site and
trying to print this page is causing the Internet connection to shut off. Similarly,
Matindale.Com showed Velamoor to be a graduate of Columbia. ( Appendix B
Link to Martindale.com), and a Columbia Journal of Environmental law showed
Velamoor as one of the editors. The Problem with all of this information, was the
fact that Velamoor did not study at Columbia and did not graduate from there.
Further study of his biography showed that FindLaw.com and Westlaw list
Velamoor as a Juris Doctor (JD) and a graduate of Commenius School of Law in
Bratislava Slovakia. (Appendix A). When this conflicting information appeared,
Martindale.com entry, showing Velamoor to be a Columbia graduate, was hastily
de-linked, which shows a pattern of cover up. Exhibit G shows Commenius
University Faculty of Law web page. Based on the information on this web page,
Velamoor could not possibly graduate from Law school there either.
from India. He speaks English and possibly some Hindu, nothing Slavic in sight.
His bio shows no studies of Slavic languages. Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Taitz,
came from the Soviet Union and knows firsthand, how extremely difficult it is to
switch between Slavic and English Languages. It is all but impossible for one with
c. Slovakia is a former Eastern Bloc Country, where the law is not based on British
program. How could Velamoor finish it in three years by 2008 and before he even
finished it, be on the list of federal court clerks, before he spent even one day
studying US law, preparing for the bar in US and learning all new different
attorney-law clerks for federal judges . When and how did he do this?
programs for international applicants includes PhD in law, but it does not include
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 11
Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 12 of 28 ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29
Juris Doctor-JD, which means, that Velamoor does not have a JD at all. So, how
thereof, who wrote an opinion to dismiss this case? Clearly Velamoor did not have
knowledge and experience for it? Could it be that his boss in Perkins Coie, White
Seeing all of the above, Watergate pales and looks like a traffic ticket in
Plaintiffs are asking this court not only to reverse the decision of the lower court,
but also to appoint an independent master or use its inherent power to appoint an
improperly demanded for Obama to be served yet again through the U.S.
attorney's office.
Defendants in their brief state: "It is clear beyond question that the underlying
lawsuit would necessarily operate against the President in his official capacity, by
virtue of the fact, inter alia, that appellants are seeking his removal from office."
Appellees as well as court misrepresented the facts of the case and the Appellants
pleadings. Appellants-Plaintiffs did not seek removal of the defendant from office.
They did not question anything Obama did in his official capacity. Their main
concern was fraud committed by Obama before getting into office and for his
personal gain and ego, therefore the political doctrine is irrelevant for this case.
Additionally, due to the above facts, the U.S attorney's office had no right to
The ORIGINAL complaint was filed in Jan 20,2009 BEFORE Obama was
sworn in. Plaintiffs were not seeking removal from office. July 13 hearing should
have been for default judgment only. It had nothing to do with seeking Obama's
removal from office, as such, service under 4e was proper. According to Judge
expedite hearing of the case on the merits. Judge Carter: "In talking to you this
way you are basically told, we are going to get to the MERITS of this very quickly.
The government is just asking for what THEY believe is proper service."
record)
Certificate of Compliance
The Appellant certifies that Appellant’s opening brief without caption and heading does not exceed
1. court erred in not granting Plaintiffs 05.27.09 motion for default judgment by the Plaintiffs
2. court erred in not granting 06.14.09. motion for reconsideration of 05.27.10 motion or for
certification for appeal
3. court abused its judicial discretion and improperly applied pressure on Plaintiffs' counsel
Taitz in demanding, that she serve the defendant Obama yet again, after he was already served
four times by different means, that she serve the US Attorneys’ office for the purpose of them
representing Obama and that due to duress and intimidation applied, her consent to serve
them was not valid. Absent such consent to serve the defendant again, and due to the fact that
the defendant did not provide an answer to the complaint, he was in default and post default
discovery needs to be conducted.
Court erred in including defamatory, slanderous inflammatory statements about the Plaintiff’s
counsel without giving the counsel an opportunity to respond and refusing any minimal inquiry
into authenticity or veracity of such allegations,
4. sua sponte assignment to the independent Prosecutor and public integrity unit evidence of Obama's
illegitimacy to US presidency,
5. sua sponte referral to the special prosecutor the matter of intimidation of Federal Judge David O.
Carter by yet unknown individual(individuals)
Applicant attests that everything in the above pleadings is true and correct to the best of her
knowledge.
Certificate of Service
Applicant attests and certifies that a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:
Assistant US ATTORNEYS
DAVID DEJUTE
ROGER WEST
(SERVED ELECTRONICALLY)
US Commission
on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C
Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530-0001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es
tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
email: ototh@ohchr.org
Signed
Counsel certifies that above brief does not exceed allowed word count
Appendix
Appendix-A
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/4073288_1?channel=CCC
Education:
Comenius University School of Law, Bratislava, Slovakia, 2008, J.D. Honors: Harlan Fiske
Stone Scholar
London School of Economics and Political Science, 2005 M.Sc.
Dartmouth College, 2004, A.B.
Appendix B
http://www.martindale.com/Siddharth-Velamoor/33735949-lawyer.htm
Education:
Columbia University, J.D.
Dartmouth College, A.B.
Appendix-C
Siddharth V. Velamoor
E-mail: svelamoor@perkinscoie.com
Lawyer Profile:
Associate
Areas of Practice:
Product Liability
Education:
Appendix D
Robert Bauer
Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 22 of 28 ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29
Appendix E
Home
Contact Us
Siddharth
Velamoor
Siddharth Velamoor, a product liability attorney for the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, began his term as
a law clerk for United States District Court Judge David O. Carter in the Central District of California
after a lawsuit (Barnett v. Obama) was filed in Carter's court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to
be President of the United States.
The hiring of Velamoor created some public speculation and controversy because Perkins Coie had
previously represented the defendant, Barack Obama, giving the appearance of a possible conflict of
interest.
However, law clerks for federal judges follow a rotation that is planned many months in advance.
Velamoor was chosen to serve as Carter's clerk for the October 2009-2010 season over a year before,
prior to the 2008 election and months before Taitz filed the lawsuit. His specialty, product liability, is
unrelated to the subject of Barnett v. Obama.
Carter decided the case in favor of the Defendant on October 17th, a few weeks after Velamoor began
his six month term as clerk.
Velamoor received his law degree from Columbia University Law School, and his undergraduate degree
from Dartmouth College.
Appendix F
Robert Bauer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Bauer
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2010
Profession Lawyer
Robert Bauer is an American attorney who is currently serving as White House Counsel under
President of the United States Barack Obama. He was formerly a partner at Perkins Coie. In
November, 2009, he was named to be the next White House Counsel,[1] upon the resignation of
Gregory Craig.[2] Bauer was President Obama's personal attorney and the general counsel of the
Obama for America presidential campaign prior to his appointment as White House Counsel. He
has also previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee,[3] and
had advised Mr. Obama since Mr. Obama came to Washington, D.C. in 2005 as U. S. Senator.[4]
Robert Bauer is said to be a potential replacement as Chief of Staff to President Obama should
Rahm Emanuel step down.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Personal life
2 Education
3 References
4 External links
[edit] Education
Bauer graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1970, from Harvard College in 1973, and
received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1976.
[edit] References
Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al Appellant's reply to opposition 24
Case: 10-55084 10/27/2010 Page: 25 of 28 ID: 7525181 DktEntry: 29
1. ^ , http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/white_house_counsel_gregory_craig_1.php
2. ^ Greg Craig out as White House Counsel
3. ^ http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/
4. ^ a b "Craig Steps Down as White House Lawyer" by Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, November
13, 2009. Retrieved November 13, 2009.
5. ^ Bloomberg news, 09/22/2010
6. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/176312
Exhibit G
Sitemap
Slovak
Submit
Bachelor Programs
Master Programs
Ph.D. Study Programs
Student’s Declaration On Concurrent or Previous Program of Study
Information on admission Comenius University Faculty of Law
o Bachelor program - the first degree in law – full-time and part-time programs
o Master program of study for the second degree in law – full-time and part-time
programs
o Full-time and part-time programs of study for the third academic degree
Continuing Education
Law in Global Society program – AIS enrollment open!
Contacts: Dean’s Secretariat: tel. 421 02 59244 104 421 02 59244 104
Students’ Affairs:
The Faculty of Law was established as part of Comenius University in June 1919. Augustín Ráth
became its first Dean, and the classes opened in October 1921.
In almost 90 years of its history, the programs of study underwent many changes. At present the
School offers the programs of study leading to three academic degrees based on the credit
system.
The mission of the School is to provide the programs of legal education enabling its graduates to
make successful legal careers both at home and in the EU, and careers in other areas of
communal and societal life.
The aim of the School is to continuously improve the content and form in all levels of study
programs by introducing modern teaching methods developed by its academic staff striving to
for the best academic achievements and the highest scholarly distinctions.
Applicants for admission to bachelor program must have completed full secondary general or
vocational education and obtained a certificate of secondary education. Other requirements, such
as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance
with the requirements will be published no later than two months before the application deadline.
The program of study is compatible with the requirements of international rules for recognition
and equivalence of academic degrees, as provided by special law.
Applicants seeking admission to programs of study for a second degree in law must have
obtained the first degree in law. Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission
procedures and the system of confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be
published no later than two months before the application deadline.
Applicants seeking admission to doctoral programs of study must have completed the programs
of study for the second degree in law or a combined program of study of the first and second
degree in law.
Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of
confirmation of compliance with the requirements will be published no later than two months
before the application deadline.
International applicants will be required to have completed a bachelor program of study in law.
Other requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and entrance
tests/interviews will be published no later than two months before the application deadline.
Each applicant is required to submit a document of graduation from the program of study for the
first degree in law translated into Slovak or a certificate of validation of a bachelor diploma
certificate in law (where the applicant comes from the country not having an agreement on
equivalence of documents), and also a birth certificate.
f/ Admission requirements for international applicants to full-time and part-time Ph.D. programs
International applicants seeking admission to doctoral programs of study must have completed
the programs of study for the second degree in law or a combined program of study of the first
and second degree in law, and to have a good command of the Slovak language. Other
requirements, such as the application deadline, admission procedures and the system of
confirmation of meeting the requirements will be published not later than two months before the
application deadline.
Each applicant must submit a master diploma certificate in law or a combined master and
bachelor diploma certificate translated into Slovak or a certificate of validation (where the
applicant comes from the country not having an agreement on equivalence of documents) and
also a birth certificate.