Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 15

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Phone 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603 Orly.taitz@gmail.com Counselor for the Plaintiffs

US District Court For the Eastern District of California James Grinols, Robert Odden, in their capacity )Case # 12-cv-02997 as Presidential Electors )

Edward C. Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, ) Keith Judd in their capacity as candidates for the U.S. President ) )

Orly Taitz in her capacity as candidate for office) in the state of CA; Edward Noonan and Orly Taitz in their capacity as registered voters in CA v Electoral College, President of the Senate, Governor of California, Secretary of State of California, U.S. Congress , aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Soebarkah, ) ) ) ) ) )
1

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 15

aka alias Barack Hussein Obama, aka alias Barack A. Obama, aka alias Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel aka alias S. A. Dunham in his capacity as an individual and candidate for the U.S. President and John Does and Jane Does 1-300

) ) ) ) ) ) )

60(B) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA Motion to stay all other proceedings in this case pending adjudication of the 60(b) motion at hand Request for an expedited hearing on the motion at hand on March 21,2013 as an expedited hearing or an ex parte hearing RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER

(b) GROUNDS

FOR

RELIEF

FROM A

FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER,

OR

PROCEEDING. On motion and

just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

2

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 3 of 15

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

60 B MOTION FILED DUE TO NEW INFORMATION AND ERROR OF FACT

Defendant Obama refuses service at his residence and U.S. Attorney's office is served out of necessity, due to consent of the defendant and based on a prior order of a Federal Judge David O. Carter from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Plaintiffs are providing this court with new information.

1.Exhibit 1, Sworn notarized affidavit of Daniel Williams, professional process server from "Same Day Process" service in Washington DC. Orly Taitz, plaintiff's attorney has employed "Same Day Service" for service of process. Mr. Williams attests that he attempted to serve Defendant Barack Obama (Hereinafter “Obama”) at his residence and was told by the Secret Service that Mr. Obama refuses to accept service of process at his residence at 1600

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

3

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 4 of 15

Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC and demands legal papers to be served through the Department of Justice/U.S. Attorneys' office. As such service of process of Mr. Obama at his residence is excused and service through the U.S. Attorneys’ office is acceptable due to impossibility to serve Mr. Obama at his residence and due to his express consent and instruction to serve him through the U.S. Attorneys' office.

2. Exhibit 2, 06.11.2009 Motion for clarification filed by Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in a related case Keyes et al v Obama 09-cv-082 USDC Central District of California with attached affidavit from server Mary McKiernan attesting that Mr. Obama is refusing to accept service of process at his residence at the White House and demands to be served through the Department of Justice/U.S. Attorneys' office. In Keyes Taitz sued on behalf of a Presidential candidate from American Independent Party in 2008 election, former U.S. Ambassador Dr. Allen Keyes and his electors. Later they were joined by a number of high ranking officers of the U.S. military and state Representatives from multiple states around the nation. In Keyes U.S. District and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately decided that the presidential candidates and electors indeed have standing to sue, however since the case was filed on the inauguration day, a few hours after Obama was inaugurated, the court ruled that he already took office and the case was filed too late for the court to have jurisdiction. The case at hand, Grinols, was filed two and a half months before Obama was inaugurated and therefore not only the plaintiffs have standing, but the court also has jurisdiction.

In regards to the service of process, after Taitz filed the motion for clarification on 06.11.2009, the day later, on 06.12.2009 the court issued an order Exhibit 3, which demanded Obama to be served not under rule 4e, but under Rule 4i through the U.S. Attorneys’ office.

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

4

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 5 of 15

In Keyes On 07.13.2009 the court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for Default Judgment against Obama or in the alternative, if the court were to refuse to grant a default hearing, Plaintiffs sought to certify the question for interlocutory appeal, as plaintiffs argued that Obama was sued for his actions prior to the election, as an individual, who committed fraud and used forged IDs, as such Obama had to be sued as an individual under Rule 4e, not as a governmental official performing his governmental duties under Rule 4i. No other candidate for office would be entitled to representation by the U.S. Attorney and at the taxpayer expense, as such Obama is not above the law and he was not entitled to service and taxpayer paid representation for fraud and use of forged IDs as a candidate as well. Transcript of the hearing is attached herein as Exhibit 4. U.S. Attorney appeared at the hearing, but stated that he did not represent Mr. Obama, he represented United States of America. At the hearing presiding judge, David O. Carter, demanded that Taitz serve the government “the way they want to be served”, that she serve Obama through the U.S. Attorney. Moreover Judge Carter threatened that if Taitz does not do that, he will dismiss the case and it will linger in the 9th Circuit for a long time, which would be Taitz fault, on the other hand, if Taitz agrees to serve Obama through the U.S. Attorney the case will be heard on the merits, he will get to the bottom of the matter and it will be done expeditiously. Taitz followed the order of Judge Carter and served Obama yet again through the U.S. Attorneys' office. After Taitz served the U.S. Attorney, he filed a motion to dismiss on technical grounds, due to lack of jurisdiction and standing, and the case was dismissed by Judge Carter noting that the candidate and elector had standing but there was no jurisdiction as the case was filed after Obama was inaugurated. The case was never heard on the merits. Even though it was subsequently dismissed due to filling on Inauguration day, Keyes serves as a precedent and shows that indeed Taitz acted properly in

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

5

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 6 of 15

serving Obama through the US Attorneys’ office due to necessity and pursuant to a prior express order by the Federal judge.

Exhibits 1-4 show that indeed Obama refuses service at his residence. Service through the U.S. Attorney was done due to necessity and due to consent by Obama, who through the Secret Service employees at the White House is directing process servers to serve him through the Department of Justice/U.S. Attorneys’ office, additionally prior order by Judge Carter, when Obama refused service at his residence, to serve him through the U.S. Attorney shows that Obama was properly served, he had an obligation to respond within 21 days, he did not do so and the Default Judgment has to be granted. Based on the new information contained herein the 60 B motion should be granted and prior order denying Default Judgment should be reversed.

STAY OF OTHER PROCEEDINGS IS JUSTIFIED

Obama is the main defendant in this case. Plaintiffs are seeking a Declaratory Judgment stating that certification of votes for Obama was done based on fraudulent representation by Obama, whereby Obama submitted his certificate of candidate, claiming to be a qualified candidate for the U.S. President based on fraud and use of forged IDs, while being an Indonesian candidate and not being qualified. As decision in regards to other defendants is integrally related an dependant on decision on Obama, Plaintiffs are asking this court to STAY other hearings and specifically STAY the Motion Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss scheduled for April 18 until this court renders its decision on this motion to reconsider Request (Motion) for Default Judgment against Defendant Obama.

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

6

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 7 of 15

Request (Motion) to expedite the decision on the 60 B Motion at hand and hear it either exparte or hear it expeditiously on the Motion Day, on Thursday, March 21st at 2pm.

This is the matter of the most egregious crime ever committed against the United States of America and People of the United states of America and the most serious breach of the U.S. National Security, namely usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a citizen of Indonesia, born in Kenya, Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro, aka Harrison J. Bounel, aka Barack Hussein Obama, using all forged IDs and a stolen CT Social Security number as a basis of eligibility and as a basis of his U.S. citizenship. Plaintiffs submitted with their original complaint and subsequent pleadings some 150 pages of sworn affidavits of top law enforcement officers and experts, showing Obama committing massive fraud and using a stolen Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, forged birth certificate and a forged selective service certificate. This represents suspension of all civil rights an deprivation of all civil rights of the U.S. citizens, as the top position in the executive branch is being usurped by a foreign citizen, who has no allegiance to this nation and who is using forged and stolen IDs as a basis of his eligibility.

Rule 1003 of Federal Rules of Evidence states:

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Moreover the Committee on the Judiciary expects the courts to be liberal in finding that a genuine question of authenticity was raised.

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

7

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 8 of 15

NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE REPORT NO. 93–650

The Committee approved this Rule in the form submitted by the Court, with the expectation that the courts would be liberal in deciding that a “genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.”

Some 200 pages of sworn affidavits of top law enforcement officials showed that indeed there is a genuine question about the authenticity of the original, all of the affidavits attest to the fact that the copies provided to the public represent crude laughable forgeries and both main Social Security verification agencies, E-Verify and SSNVS, show Obama blatantly acting outside the law and using a Social Security ID, which was never assigned to him, and so far not one single judge or jury has ever seen any original IDs for Obama and for over four years now there was no authentication of any IDs for Obama. So far all of the legal challenges brought against Obama were dismissed based on technicalities, often conflicting technicalities. As such in the interest of Public Policy, in the interest of

protecting the US. National Security and ending the usurpation of the position of the U.S. President and Commander in chief it is imperative to hear this motion expeditiously

CONCLUSION

Rule 60B motion at hand should be granted as Plaintiffs provided the court sworn affidavits from two servers of process attesting to the fact that Defendant Obama refuses to accept service of process at his residence. Service through the U.S. Attorney was done due to necessity and due to consent by Obama, who through the Secret Service employees at the White House is directing process servers to serve him through the Department of Justice/U.S.

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

8

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 9 of 15

Attorneys’ office, additionally prior order by Judge Carter, when Obama refused service at his residence, directed to serve Obama through the U.S. Attorney, and it shows that Obama was properly served, he had an obligation to respond within 21 days, he did not do so and the Default Judgment has to be granted. Based on the new information contained herein the 60 B motion should be granted and prior order denying Default Judgment should be reversed.

Additionally other proceedings in this case should be stayed, as the adjudication on Defendant Obama is central to the case and will influence the adjudication regarding other defendants.

Above motion should be heard either exparte or expeditiously at the previously scheduled hearing on March 21, 2013, the original hearing date. This is the case of the outmost importance for the public and for the nation as a whole. Plaintiffs provided this court with undeniable and irrefuted evidence showing Barack Obama being a citizen of Indonesia, not a natural born U.S. citizen, no evidence of him ever legally becoming the U.S. citizen and all evidence showing him defrauding the Plaintiffs, other defendants and the nation as a whole, by running for the U.S. Presidency using last name not legally his, forged IDs and a stolen CT SSN, which does not pass E-Verify and SSNVS. It is in public interest for this court to grant the Default Judgment expeditiously and for the plaintiffs to conduct the post judgment discovery and obtain the original IDs for Barack Obama, if they even exist.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Orly Taitz, ESQ
Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment 9

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 10 of 15

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Declaration of Orly Taitz

I, Orly Taitz, attest and declare that

1. Attached affidavit of Daniel Williams is a true and correct copy of such affidavit received by me. 2. Attached Affidavit on Mary McKiernan is a true and correct copy of such affidavit received by me. 3. Attached Transcript of 07.13.2009 hearing before Judge Carter is a true and correct copy of such transcript received by me from the court reporter.

/s/ Orly Taitz

cc cc U.S. and International media cc House Committee on the Judiciary Congressman Bob Goodlatte -Chairman 2309 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5431 Fax: (202) 225-9681

cc Congressman Gregg Harper (R-MS) Chairman United State House Administration Subcommittee on Election
Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment 10

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 11 of 15

307 House Office Building Washington DC 20515 ph 202-225-5031 fax 202-225-5797 ccGregg Harper, Mississippi, Chairman Aaron Shock, Illinois Rich Nugent, Florida Todd Rokita, Indiana Bob Brady, Pennsylvania, Ranking Member Charlie Gonzalez, Texas cc Congressman Darrell Issa Chairman House Oversight Committee 2347 Rayburn House Building Washington DC, 20515

cc Congressman Mike Rogers Chairman House Intelligence Committee 133 Cannon House Office building
Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment 11

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 12 of 15

Washington DC 20515

cc Congressman Sam Johnson Chairman House Subcommittee on Social Security House Ways and Means Committee 2929 N Central Expy, 240 Richardson, TX 75080

cc Congressman Dana Rohrbacher Chairman House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations' House Committee on Foreign Affairs 2300 Rayburn House Building Washington DC 20515

US Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 C
Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment 12

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 13 of 15

Public Integrity Section Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530-0001

Inter -American Commission on Human Rights 1889 F Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C., 20006 U.S.A.. Tel.: 202-458-6002, 202-458-6002. Fax: 202-458-3992.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland International Criminal bar Hague BPI-ICB-CAPI Head Office Neuhuyskade 94
Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment 13

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 14 of 15

2596 XM The Hague The Netherlands Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070 Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531 Email: info@bpi-icb.org Website: www.bpi-icb.org Regional Office - Americas / Bureau régional - Amériques / Oficina regional Américas 137, rue St-Pierre Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5 Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757 Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590 Email: admin@bpi-icb.org Website: www.bpi-icb.org 001 (514) 289-8757 0031 (70) 3268070

Laura Vericat Figarola BPI-ICB-CAPI Secretaria Barcelona laura_bpi@icab.es Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

14

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93 Filed 03/12/13 Page 15 of 15

08029 Barcelona, España tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for Civil Rights Defenders Orsolya Toth (Ms) Human Rights Officer Civil and Political Rights Section Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights tel: + 41 22 917 91 51 email: ototh@ohchr.org

Grinols et al v Electoral College 60 B Motion to reconsider denial of Default Judgment

15

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 2

U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California

6rinols et al v Electoral College et al
Sworn Declaration l, Daniel Williams, declare that I am a professional process server employed by the "Same Day Process" service of process agency. I attempted to serve Mr. Barack Obama at his residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. lwas told by the Secret Service detail at the entrance that Mr. Obama refuses

to accept service of process at his residence and I need to serve him through the Department of
JusticelU.S. Attorneys' Office.
I attest that this is

t

3* /2'
Dated

791-<

(

l,l

*

coHr-rl

.. EXPI ':9l11l

c>:x;

Gmail - Affidavit - Due Diligence of service attempted on President Barack Obama

Page

I of2

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 2

Lx*'4
1 message

l--""

Bi l!

Orly

Ta

iE< orly.taitz@gmail.com>

Affidavit - Due Diligence of service attempted on President Barack Obama
Andrew Yonki< andrew@samedayprocess.com> To: Orly Taitz <orly.taitz@gmail.com>
Here you are. Have a great day!

Tue, Mar 12,2013 at 7:59 AM

Andrew

SAME '

PROCESS

Andrew Yonki Out0f-State Process Chief and Client Accounts Specialist Same Day Process Service '121911th St NW Washington, DC 2000f
202-398-420S

W

ww* .saffi edayprocess.com
a

nd rew@sa meclay p roc es$.c0 m
@

.,'G.',

d&

NAPPS member since 1986

pRIVACY NOTICE: This message is intended solely for the use of the individual and/or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable state and federal laws. lf the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message t9 lle intended recipient, you are hereby notified nai any disseilination, distrlbution, forwarding or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. lf you reieived this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and delete the original message.

https://mail.google.co mlmail1?ui:2&ik:a3a25723cf&view:pt&search:inbox&th:13d5fl.-.

3112120T3

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-2 Filed Page 1- of Page 1 tD #:43 Case 8.09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 13 Filed 06111/09 03/12/13 4 Page of 5

Dr. Orly Taitz Attorney-at-Law Orly Taitz Law Offices 26302LaPaz, Suite 2l I Mission Viejo, California 92691 Telephone. (949) 683-5411
E-Mail : drJaitz@yahoo. com

{.INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORMA SANTA ANA (SOUTITERN) DTVTSTON Alan Keyes, Ph.D., Willey S. Drake, Markham

Robinson, Plaintiffs, v.$

and

$

$ $
$ $ $

$

Civil Action No.:
SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)

Barack H. Obama, et

al., Defendants

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE: NOTICE OF DEF.ICIENCY & REQUEST FOR EWDENTIARY HEARING ON DEFAULT
On Wednesday, June 10,2009, this Court's Deputy Clerk A. DeAvila issued the
second Notice of Deficiency: Default to the above-designated counsel for Plaintiffs

issued within ten days of the first Notice of Deficiency regarding Proof of Service

(Dock* Repot Document 8) signed on June 1,2009. by Deputy Clerk R. La Chapelle.
There were two points of deficiency noticed on June 1,20A9, namely that "the name of the person served does not match the complaint" and that "proof of service is

lacking required information--No statute cited (see notice from the clerk on coult's website 11/18/03).
On June 2, 2009, submitted the June 2, 2009, "General server Mary Ann McKiernan as Document l0-2 along with

Affidavit" of Process

Plaintiff s "Second Amended

Motion for Default."

Motionfor Clarification of June

10, 2009, Notice of Deficiency

Defuult/

I

Defuult Judgment and Requestfor Evidentiary Hearing on Defuult

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-2 Filed Page 2 of Page 2 lD #:44 Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-ANl Docunrent l-3 Filed 06/1-1i09 03/12/13 4 Page of 5

The 11/1812003 Notice from the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California states that "all returns of service of process... .will require
the following information for a default by the Clerk to be entered: 1. The statute under

which process was served, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure +(e)((t)...." The Second
Amended Motion for Default filed on June 2,2009,
as

Document 10, stated that Plaintiffs

had effected service by and through Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The June 2,2009, affidavit of Mary Ann McKiernan also specified and set forth

in detail the names of the persons served and the history of Mary Ann McKiernan's

diligent efforts to serve the lead Defendant on February 10,2009 at several different
addresses in Washington,

D.C.. Mary Ann McKiernan specifically stated that she had

served "a male Mail clerk" who "came out and took the papers" on behalf of the United
States Department of Justice, which was the

otlcer to which the White House Legal

Counsel had referred the process servers. The name of this male Mail Clerk officer was not made available to the process server and could not be entered on the proof of service. However, the process server's

detail of due diligence seems irrefutable and fully consistent with the purpose and provisions of Rule 4(e). The full text of Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state as follows:

(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual--other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed--may be

served

in a judicial district of the United States by:

(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made, or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;
Motion

Defuult Judgment and Requestfor Evidentiury Heartng on Default

for Ctartfication of June 10, 2009, Notice of Deficiency Default/

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-2 Filed Page 3 of Page 3 tD #:45 Case B:09-cv-C0082-DOC-AN Document 13 Filed 06111i09 03/12/13 4 Page of 5

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
The undersigned counsel has highlighted section (e)(Z)(C) of Rule 4 and

submits that the June

2,

2009, affrdavit

of Mary Ann McKinernan is

incontrovertible proof of proper service of process under Rule a(e)(2)(C).
The June 10, 2009 (Docket Report Document 12) signed by A. DeAvila omits the first item checked on the June

l,

2009, notice (namely that the names on

the complaint and proof of service did not match), but again checked the "Proof

of Service is lacking required information" box without the typewritten addition
of reference to the lTll8l2003 Notice from the Clerk of the CDCA or any other
information.
Since the June 2, 2009, Second Amended Motion for Default and Accompanying

Affidavit of Mary Ann McKiernan provided the full history of the attempted service,
including the identity and title of the person served and the full repertoire of names of the lead Defendant,

it would seem that no further

objections to the Proof

of Service of

Process remain and default should now be entered and an evidentiary hearing set to prove

up the relief requested, to which Plaintiffs are now entitled by reason of Default.

PRAYER FOR RELTEB
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs move and request a clarification of what information,

if

any is still lacking in the record regarding Proof of Service on the lead defendant, and
that this Court now set an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default.

Motionfor Clarification of June

Notice af Deficiency Default/ Default Judgment and Requestfor Evidentiary Hearing on Defuult
10, 2009,

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-2 Filed 03/12/13 Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 13 Filed 06/11-109 Page 4 of Page 4 lD #:46 Page of 5

4

Respectfully zubmitted, Thursday, June 11,2009

By: Dr, Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433) Attorney for the Plaintiffs 26302LaPaz, Suite 211 Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone (949) 683-541 I E-Mail: drJaitz@yahoo. com

Motionfor Aarificatian af June

70, 2009, Natice of Deficiency

DefauW

4

Defautt Judgment and. Requestfor Evidentiwy Heafing on Defaalt

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-2 Filed 03/12/13 Page 5 of 5

GENER,AI, AEFID.AV}T

BEFORE ME, the undersignecl
on

this 20th day of May, 2009, personally

to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly srorrq on her oatl5
deposes and says:

Notary, - ,Yv ,' ., .,. |-L :,t . . . appeared Mary Arm McKiernan, known to me -,

On February 10,2009, I tied to serve a Pieading to tsarack Hussein Obama a-k.a- Earry Soetoro at the Whit€ House 1600 Pennsylvauia Avenue, T/ashington D.C, 20500. I gave the envelope with the Pleading to a Secret Service Agent a* a gare just outride of the lVhite House. The Seoret Service Agent inrmediately opened up the envelope- The Secret Service Agent made sevsral calls while I was waiting for t}ern to answer. I was advimd by the Seczet Service Agcfit that I could not serye the papers here. They gave me back the envelope with the Pleadirg inside of it, along with my State ID Card. I left the White House and made a call to the White Houee 202456-111 1. I explained to the White House Oprrator my rearnn f,or my visit is to serve some ppers on Barack Hr.rssein Obura- The operator immediately forwarded rny call to the White House l,egal Counsel. I was advised by the White House tregal Cormsel thar I neededto servotte papersto the Dgartmsnt of Jwtice. tr went over to the Department of Ju;stics Department. When I got there. the feraale Securig Guard that was outside told me that I could not serve the papers. I told the Security Person, i ann being sent here ftom the White House. I calted the Department of Justice and explained to somr,one from the Departrnent of Justice that I had papers to serye on Barack Husseiu Obanna and tr have besn advised by the White House to serve them here. The person that I spoke to said that someone would come out and get the papers. A male Mail Cierk came ou,i and took the papers.

:.' -..jii,. r' t.'.. i,/
Mary Ann McKiernan 221 Fir Court StreannvootiJl,60107

SubscriM and sworn to bef,ore rne, this
l:i_r-.

..

aiw\

)n,

day

of

-----.-r-___-__

,,r.''q.,96{

,r-*

i: 'i$,

:idr-F'rctAq sE ql,_ "

i;unnne Leskc
lrb',r

',r,a,i

i,r"1i,r',i*iuiLn

!:l;l'r^*ffi iory1lfff

NOTAR.Y PLIBI.IC

My commission expires:

20j._

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-3 Filed 03/12/13 Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 14 Filed 06/12109 Page 1 of Page 1 of 2#:47 2 page tD

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CE,NTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVI
Case

MINUTBS. GENBRAL

No.

SA CV09-0082-DOC(ANx)

Date

June 12, 2009

Title

ALAN KEYES, PH.D., ET. AL., -V- BARACK H. OBAMA, ET. AL.,

Present: The

DAVID O. CARTER
None Present Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.

Honorable Kristee Hopkins Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not

Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

IIN CHAMBERS] EXTENDING ORDER To sHow CAUSE, AND FINDING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

On May 12,2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution, with a response deadline of June 12,2009. Plaintiffs have attempted to comply with the Court's Order to Show Cause on May 27 ,2009 and June 2,2009 by unsuccessfully seeking entry of default. The Court is also in receipt of a Motion for Clarification re: Notice of Deficiency and Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Default, filed by plaintiffs on June 11,2009, in which they argue that service had been effected by and through Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Plaintiffs are directed to Rule 4(i), which addresses service upon the United States and its agencies, corporation, officers or employees.

In light of plaintiffs' efforts, the Order to Show Cause is extended until July 13,2009,to permit plaintiffs additional time to properly effect service pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(i) as to all defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs' motion is hereby rendered MOOT due to the Court's extension of the Order to
Show Cause.
The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of plaintiffs' response. No response is required if a responsive pleading or proof of service (indicating proper service in full compliance with F.R.Civ.P.4(i) as to all defendants) has been filed on or before the date upon which the response is due.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action.

Initials of Preparer kh
cv-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page

I of2

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

Case 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 93-3 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 2

14

Filed 06/1-2109 Page 2 of

2

Page lD #:48

LTNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CTyIL MIN[UTES. GENERAL

Date June 12,2009 No. SA CV09-0082-DOC(ANx) Title ALAN KEYES, PH.D., ET. AL., -V- BARACK H. OBAMA, ET. AL.,
Case

cv-90

(06104)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENf,RAL

PageZ

of2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful