You are on page 1of 11

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:2537

I
2 3

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ


29839 Santa Margarita PKWY, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

5 6
'1

Counsel for Plaintiffs

I
9

US DISTRICT COURT

10

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

!2
13

Pamela Bamett, Alan Keyes, et


14

al

)
)

Case No.: 09-0082

15

Plaintiffs, vs.
Barack Obama, et

16

l1
18

) al
)

Rule 60 motion

t9
2A

Defendants

)
) )

2I
22 23
24

25 26 27

REPLY TO OPPOSITION Plaintiffs are replying to the opposition to the motion for reconsideration for
the Leave ofCourt to lile a Second Amended Complaint as follows:

Keyes

et al v

obana Reply

to oppositioD to Motio4 for reconsiderati

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:2538

I. I)efendants are shamelesslv misrepresentins the statute and defraudinq the


2
3

court. for which their attorneys should be sanctioned


Rule 60 b states as follows:
RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A ruDCMENT OR ORDER coico66 8r$b oN c{roL M6r^xa 06(6 o o(soNs. Th. .o!n may .ore.r a .lri..l fri'tak. o. a mnrak. ansins from d.6iqhr or onissionwhon.v.roneirfoundinajudsme,dd{,oiorhsp.norlhrerord.Th.colnm.vdosoo.motionoroniBown,wiihorwithour iori.e, Sutaile.an appealhas beei do.keted n the appe ate.ou|tandwhi! t i5 pendins, su.h a m nake maybecoirected on ywih the
(al

5 6

(b)CRouNDsroRRfltrnoM^FNALIIDGMINr,oRDejorPRocftDNc.odmonondndlunterms,thecoudmayreveapahyortsLegarepreientatv. kom i finar judsru.t. od., ar p

ll)
9

miliaLe, nadv.fr.nce, !urpris., or.r.usable n.9edi dilrqen..,.ould nor have b..n dis.overed in t
me ro mov ror a new

10

(2) newly discovred.viden(e rhat. wnh reasonabl.

Far under Bllc

r9{!)
(3) fraud (wherher prevloudy ca d

t1
72

inftrnt. or.xtinsn),

5repres.iiaton ar mBcondudbytrn opposins par.y;

(4) thejudsment

vo di

l3
14
:15

(t) ihejudgftnt h.s b.en satistied, relasd, o' dis.hars.d: it is ba3.d on


applyinq t prospedivcy ls no lo
(6) any

an

.adier

j u

dgnnt thar ha' be..

rm6.d orvaGt.d;or

oth.r Ealon th{junlti.s r.lief.


or

16
11
:18

(d T'Y'M arc

*to

Br r,iloro(
iime- rnd ror reasons (l), (2). and (3) no more rhan
a year

(l) I/,,r9.
rh..ntry

A motio. unner rule 60l!) mus be made a(hln a r.asonable ot rhejudqm.nt orod.r orthe d.te of th. pro.ed'ng.

arir

19

Plaintiffs specifically argued that Rule 60 motion should be granted under Rule 60
b(2) and (6)

20 21
22 23
24

Plaintiffs conveniently twisted the pleading and claimed that the motion is filed
under rule 60b(2) and therefore it is untimely. However time limitation is only

under rule 60 bl,2 and 3. There is no time limitation on Rule 60b(6).

Motion clearly includes 60 b(6). "anv other reason thatjustifies relief'. There is no
time limitation on 60b(6). It can be hled 10 years afterjudgment and a 100 years afterjudgment.

21
2A

At

issue is the most serious crime ever to be committed against the United States o

America, specifically usurpation ofthe U.S. Presidency by a foreign national,


xeyes

et a] v

obafra Reply

to opposition to Morion I.r reconsidelation

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:2539

citizen iflndonesia and possibly still a citizen ofKenya and Creat Britain, Barack
Hussein Obama, who was able to get into the position ofthe U.S. Senator from

Illionis, U.S. President and currently

a candidate

for the 2012 election by virtue

of

fraud, use of forged and fraudulently obtained lDs and a Racketeering scheme,

which involves corflrpt high ranking officials ofthe U.S. govemment and the
6

govemment of the State of Har.raii.

It serves iustice for the court to review the evidence provided and grant the leave o
court to file the Second Amended Complaint.
9

There is no other cause that would serve Justice more than ending the usurpation of the U.S. Presidencv and annexation and usurpation of the civil

10

1:l

rishts of everv American citizen due to the usurnation of the U.S. Presidencv.
Defendants attomeys, who are assistant aftomeys ofthe U.S. aftomeys'office

)2
13

clearly saw that Rule60b(6) was stated, they knew that under 60b(6) a Motion for
Reconsideration can be filed at any time, they simply provided a bogus argument
and defrauded the court by claiming that the moiion is not timely and they should
be sanctioned fbr it.

)4

l5 l6
I1
L8

II.

Defendants claim of "Res Judicata'r- is a fraudulent statement

"Res Judicata" is applicable, when the case is heard on the merits and adjudicated 2t
22 23
24

on the merits. The issue ofObama's use

ofa forged birth certificate, forged ofthc U.S. Presidency while being

Selective Service certificate, stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx4425, a name not legally his and the usurpation
a

foreign citizen, was never adjudicated on the merits. Racketeering conspiracy

of

25

several corrupt federal and state olficials who are criminally complicit and are

aiding and abetting Obama and committing treason against the United States of
2.1

America, was never adjudicated on the merits.

xeyes eL al v Obana Reply ro Opposition to Motion for reconsideration

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:2540

Neither Judge Carter nor any other judge in this nation ever received any valid

identification papers from Obama, which would refute evidence showing him
using all forged IDs. Obama failed to respond to any subpoenas and failed to
appear in court and failed to present his identification papers, even after ajudge in
a

similar case Farrar v Obama OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-121513 6- 60-MAI-IHI

ruled in favor ofthe plaintiffs and denied Obama's motion to quash subpoenas
issued by attorney

Taitz. Unfortunately, even though Obama arrogantly made

mockery ofthe proceedings by the elections commissions and in one aforementioned case in GA, never responded to subpoenas, never provided any

valid identification papers; the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole are yet to see
one single judge hold Obama and his accomplices accountable. 31

I million

American citizens are denied Equal Protection and Equal Consideration, which is
gratuitously given to Obama.

This court dismissed this case not on the merits, but on

technicality, on standing,

ruling that after the election the candidates do not have standing to bring a
challenge to legitimacy ofthe president. 9th Circuit court ruled on standing as well.

RtrFUSAL TO GRANT A LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL REPRESENT A VIOLATION OF

PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION


RIGHTS UIIDER A COLOR OF AUTHORITY
Under the l4th Amendment citizens similarly situated have to be treated equally
and cannot be discriminated.

Under the 5th and 14th amendment citizens have to be given sufficient due
process,

Recently this court, Hon. Judge Carter granted Delegates to the Republican

National Convention an opportunity to file a Second Amended complaint, stating


that the First Amended complaint was not sufficiently pled. Delegates to the
Kcyes et al v Obama Reply to Opposition to l4olion fo! reconsldelatioD

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:2541

l
2 :l

Republican National Convention v Republican National Committee 12-00927


Judge David O. Carter presiding. ln the case at hand Plaintiffs argued that they had an extremely hard time

conducting discovery due to complete lack ofcooperation f'rom the Depaftment

ofJustice and other govemmental agencies, as the case dealt with the forgery in
6

the identification papers ofthe sitting president. On 08.01.2009 Plaintiffs filed a

I
9

DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON


10 11 12 13

'nd

CERTAIN NON-PARTY

WITNf,SSFI,S'l'O l'ERPETUATETESTIMONY. I'RESERVE EVIDENCB. and to

TRANSMIT LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 6El78l(r)(21(b)42). This


court denied il and Plaintiffs could not get all the necessary evidence at that time.

I4
15

\6
L1

Currently new cvidence became available which was submifted to this court with this motion.

Newly submitted evidence includes a sworn affidavit from SheriffJoseph Arpaio attcsting to
forgcry in Obama's Birth certificate, Selective SeNice Cenificate and Social Sccurity NumberThis court allowed to file a Second Amended Cornplaint to Plaintiffs -Delegates to the

r8
79 20
21 22 23
'L4

Republican Convention, whose complaint. if granted, would have benefited Barack Obama,
as

it would be a disruption ofthe Republican convention. On the other hand

as

ofyet.

Republicans were deried equal protection. Plaintiffs in this case yqg j9a!9t144$!q99y9qy whatsoever, the case was dismissed on standing, and now the del'endants are seeking l{es Judicata in order to use this court as a tool, in order to bury forever the nost serious

25 26
21
2A

Racketeering act and the most scrious crime. ever to be conrmitted against the tjnited States America.
Keyes

of

et al v

Obasa Reply

to Opposition to Moliod for teconsideration

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:2542

As Your Honor is an appointee oflhe Democmt President Clinton, the public and the plaintiffs
are deeply concemed that the due process and equal protection rights

2 3
4

ofthe Plaintiffs

are

egrcgiously violated under the color ofauthority in order to promote narrow Democratic Party
interests.

This is parricularly important in light ofthe fact that the threejudge panel olthe 9th Circuit
Court ofAppeals by some lype ofa coiDcidence corrsisted ofall three appointees ofthe same
8
9

Democrat -President Clinton.

This coult did not give the samc consideration. did not grant the same due process and equal
protection to Plaintiffs who challenged Obama, as it gave to the plaintiffs. whose action would

10

1:i

indireotly benetit Obama.


72

t.l
14

Plaintifls argue that this is a malter of National Security and outmost National importarce.

Plaintill!

attach

herein

a lctter from the

Califomia Attomeys'Bar. This letter was written in

r5
16

response to a complaint filed by aftomey

Orly'l'aitz in regards to actions ofanother attorney,

Scott J. Tepper, who sought ajudicial notice ofa copy ofallegcd birth certificate ofObama,
l-1

t8
19
2A

posted by Obama on WhiteHouse.go\,. Tailz argued that lepper had evidence Obama's birth certiticate and sought iudicial notice. trying to use the

offorgery of

court

its a tool to

legitimize and sanitize forgery. Cust like defendants are trying to use this court to claim that

2I
22

Rlco-Racketeering scheme involving Obama's forged identification papers was adjudicated


on the merits, knowing that it was never adjudicated on the merits and Res Judicata does not

23
24

apply). California Bar responded thal this (referring to Obama's lbrged birth certificate) is a
matter of National Security and needs to be heard by the court. Exhibit I .

2'
26 21
2F

Recently Alabama Supreme Court heard a similar case. Mclnnish v Chapman


87140552 Alabama Supreme court. Unfortunately, the case was filed by a pro se
(oyes et el v obaM Repiy Lo opposition to Motion for reccnsidelation

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:2543

plaintiff, who mistakenly skipped the lower court and wenr straight to
2

a higher

court to appeal the decision by the Secretary ofState of Alabama Beth Chapman to allow Obama on the ballot in light of his forged identification papers. While

the Supreme Court


6
'1

ofAL

had to dismiss the case due to lack

ofjurisdiction,

Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker wrote:


"

I
9

Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which,

ifpresented to the approprfutte forum as part of a proper evidentiary


presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the

10
11

t2
13

"shortform" and the "longform" birth certifcates of President Barack Hussein


Obama that have been made public." Id Mclnnish v Chapman 87140552

14
:15

Alabama Supreme court. This confirms the assertion by the plaintiffs in the case
at hand that this is a case ofgreat importance to National security, as it shows

16

I1
18 19

that an individual occupying the position ofthe President and Commander in

Chief

is using identification papers, which "raise serious questions

of

2o

2t
22 23
24

authenticity..."
As such granting a leave ofcourt to file a Second Amended complaint in one
case and deny

it in another similar case, represents a clear violation ofEqual

Protection rights of the Plaintiffs.


26 21

IIL Defendants convenientlv omitted the whol areument ofdifferent standinq

Keyes

et al v obana Replv to opposicio. io Motion fo. re.onsideration

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:2544

1 2
3

When the first amended complaint was dismissed, it was dismissed based on the standing ofplaintil'fs challenging the sitting President after the election. 9 th

circuit confirmed on the same ground.


4

5
6

However, the court never reviewed the standing ofone ofthe Plaintiffs, Alan Keyes, who was the runner up in the senatorial election. Justice was never
served on the issue ofObama stealing that election and getting in the position

I
9

of

the U.S. Senator from Illinois based on fraud and use of forged IDs and while

10

l1 I2
13

being a foreign national. The interest ofJustice demands this court to grant the
leave ofcourt to file a Second Amended Complaint on RICO, a Racketeering
scheme that allowed this fraud to take place. Additionally the court never

14

I5
16

considered the issue of Obama's possible run for the reelection. Currently Obama is running for the reelection. Even ifone considers that no citizen can

I7
18

challenge a sitting president, there is no impediment to considering legitimacy o


a candidate and a

19

RICO, a racketeering scheme, which allows fraud during the

20

2!
22

presidential run.

Additionally the court can raise Rule 60 b motion at any time sua sponte.
purport of each rule will expose whether the aule touches on issues of power orwaiver. Rule 60(b) concerns the maintenance and integrity ofthe couds and the efllcient disposition ofcases.il2 It codifies a court's equitablE authority to give relief to judgments when appropriate and reinfcrces the proscription of faaudulent behavior.n3Judges must be equipped with the tools to maintain the integriry of the courts, and Rule 60(b) is such a iHenry tool. Therefore, judges should be able to raise Rule 6O{b) motions qla sporte.

"The

21
24

25

Brounstein

21
2A

Public interest Law Joumal 166 Vol 15.


FED. R.

f,om

Cv. P.60(b):This mle does not limit lhe powd ofa courtlo entertain an independent aclion to relieve a party judgmenl order, or proceeding, or to qranl relief to a defendanl

(eyes et al v obaha Reply to opposition to Motion for reconsideratioo

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134

Filed 08/27/12 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:2545

not actually personally nolilied as provicled in Title 28 U.S.C., S 1655, or to set aside a judgment forfraud upon the court. Ltnk,370 u.5. at632.

MOTION SHOULD BE RDVIEWED IN FAVOR OF RESOLVING THE MATTER ON TTIE MERITS AIID FAILIJRE TO GRANT A 60(B) MOTION MAY BE VIEWED AS AN ABUSE OF .II'DICIAL DISCRETION.

III RULE

60 (B)

It is ironic that while originally Obama did not respond to the complaint, this coud pressured the Plaintiffs attorrrey to serwe the U.S. attomeys' office with the complaint, so it will be heard on the merits. The merits ofthe case and particularly RICO wefe nevef heard. In sar,azea !. aHAvEz 2a200122 cA in lhe court or Appeals or
UT 81,1154. 150 P.3d 480 {cirations oDrifted). Additionally. because rule 60(b) is e.quitable in natu.e, "a dislricl court should

Utah, the court slated: Because "tal disllict court has bload discrerion lo rule on a norion !o set aside a default judgnent under lule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil ProcedDie L l . we reliew a district coudb denialofa60(b) motion tforld abuse ofdiscrelion 'Menzies v Galetkn 2006
11

!2
13

ils discrelion in favor of q.anting relief so lhat controversies can be decided on the nerits." Id, !ast. "a district court's ruling on a notion to set aside a default judqnent nust be based on adequate findings of fact and oo the lat." Id. ll 55 (intelnal quotailon narks onitted) . FactDal findings are reviewed for clear error and ..n.lirsi.ns of law are reviewed for colrectness. See id.
exercise

There is no nore imporlant considetation of the interesl of justice, rhan for lhis court to alLo the second anended conplaint to be filed so the issue ol the RIco schene leadinq to lhe usurpation of the U.S. Presidency As this courl noted pleviously: "the nalion needs to know. lhe niliiary needs to know".

15

CONCLUSION
7l

Under Rule 60 (b) 6 "in the interest ofJustice" and due to evidence showing Racketeering conspiracy perpetrated with the goal ofthe usurpation ofthe U.S.
Presidency and massive elections fraud ofthe U.S. citizens during 2004 Senatorial contest ln Illinois between plaintiff Keyes and Defendant Obama and
due to evidence ofelections fraud committed by candidate Obama during

19
2O

21 22 23
24

ongoing Presidential elect ion campaign

25 26
21

Motion for leave of Court to file a Second Amended complaint by Plaintiff


Keyes on the cause ofaction for RICO should be granted. to opposition to Molion for reconsidration

Keyes

et al v

Obana Reply

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134 Filed 08/27/12 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:2546

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq counsel for Plaintiffs

2 3
4

08.27 .2012

6
'1

cc Congressman Darell lssa

I
9

Chairman
House oversight committee

2347 Rayburn House office Building Washington DC,20515

10

Lt
t2
13 14 15 16
17

cc Congressman Lamar Smith

Chairman of the House Committee


On the Judiciary

2409 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington DC, 20515


Public lntegrity Section

18

19 20
21

Department ofJustice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530-000L

22
23 24

25

21
2A

Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice Investigations Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4706 Washington, DC 20530
Keyes

et aI v Ob a Reply to Opposition to Motion fo! reconsidelalionl

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 134 Filed 08/27/12 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:2547

due to evidence ofelections fraud committed by candidate Obama during

ongoing Presidential election campaign

Motion for leave ofCourt to file a Second Amended complaint by Plaintiff


4

5 6

Keyes on the cause of action for RjCO


is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are given 30 days to file a Second Amended Complaint

I
9

Signed

10 11

\2
13

Honorable Davis O. Carter, U.s. District Judge Dated

14

15

16
1? 18 19 20

2I
22
23 24 25

26
21 28

Keyes et aI v Obaha Reply to Opposition !o Motio! fo! leconsideralionl