OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Request for Judicial notice filed in Taitz v Sebelius

Posted on | August 4, 2012 | 8 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

Pro se plaintiff

 

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PLAINTIFF         ) CASE # SACV-12-1092 DMG (JC)

V                                                                     ) ASSIGNED TO

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS                                 ) TRIAL SCHEDULED ON

IN HER CAPACITY OF SECRETARY OF  ) VIOLATION OF 14TH AMENDMENT

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,        ) EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS,

et al.                                                              ) ESTABLISHMENT   CLAUSE                                    

            DEFENDANTS                                 ) ARTICLE 2, SEC 1 OF COSTITUTION                                                                                       ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, STAY  

                                                                        ) DECLARATORY RELIEF

                                                                        ) RICO, PREDECATE CRIMES:

                                                                        ) FRAUD, AIDING AND ABETTING

) FORGERY AND UTTERING OF FORGED

                                                                        ) DOCUMENTS TO COMMIT ELECTIONS

                                                                        ) FRAUD

                                                                        ) 7TH AMENDMENT JURY DEMANDED

 

 

 

Request FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN Conjunction with Motion for Stay/Preliminary Injunction

 

Plaintiff Pro Se Dr. Orly Taitz (hereinafter “Taitz”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document attached as Exhibit 1. This request is made pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This request is made in connection with Taitz’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiff.

Exhibit 1 – Order from Senior U.S. District Court Judge John L. Kane in recent case Newland et. al. v Sebelius, case No: 1:12-cv-1123-JLK.

 

BASIS FOR REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE

 

Courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts. U.S. ex rel Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir. 1979)) (“[W]e ‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”). Exhibit 1 is a decision of other federal district court

The content of that decision is a public record that is “not subject to reasonable dispute [and] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). This exhibit reflects the decision in other federal court, and is appropriate for judicial notice as set forth in U.S. ex rel Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council. Taitz requests that this Court take judicial notice of Exhibit1 solely to demonstrate its existence and the similarity of the claims in the cases, and not for the truth of their contents.

This order is a precedent to the case at hand. In Newland v Sebelius, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction from providing coverage for abortifacient drugs, contraception, sterilization and the healthcare plan due to their religions aversion against abortions and birth control. The court found that the provision in PPACA violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights of Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and RFRA.

Similarly, case at hand Taitz v Sebelius is seeking an injunction against the same affordable care act on the grounds that it violates First Amendment rights of Free Exercise of Religion, violates First Amendment Establishment Clause, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause as  PPACA gives preference to citizens of certain  religions such as Muslims exempting then from purchase of health insurance and punishing members of other religions such as Christians and Jews through mandating to purchase health insurance or penalizing by penalty tax if they do not purchase such insurance.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

by /s/Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ, Plaintiff Pro Se

 

08.02.2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

8 Responses to “Request for Judicial notice filed in Taitz v Sebelius”

  1. Paige
    August 4th, 2012 @ 10:14 am

    “The court found that the provision in PPACA violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights of Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and RFRA.”

    Uh, no, the court has made no findings of the sort. It’s a preliminary injunction for the Newlands’ company only, and only to maintain the status quo until the case can be heard. The court specifically stated that it did not make any determination on the merits.

  2. Hank Grum
    August 4th, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

    Please cite the section in PRACA or elsewhere that exempts Muslims from the health care act.

    I want to read it for myself.

  3. Jake Rollins
    August 4th, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

    I’d settle for her citing to it in her “lawsuit”.

    I suspect defendants and the judge will be interested in such as well. Can’t wait.

  4. Doris Grosvner
    August 4th, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

    Well you sure got him now!

  5. Leslie Johnson
    August 5th, 2012 @ 12:12 am

    Remember our Sacred Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Once Great Nation, and nowhere in it does it exempt one Religion and not another another Religion. It treat all Religions equally under the law.

  6. Marty
    August 5th, 2012 @ 4:39 am

    Why do you only mention Christians and Jews. It would seem that you should also mention that Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, and every other religion practiced in this great country are required to purchase health insurance while those Muslim terrorists get theirs paid for by WE THE PEEPLE!

  7. e. scott
    August 5th, 2012 @ 6:57 am

    Hank Grum said:

    “Please cite the section in PRACA or elsewhere that exempts Muslims from the health care act.

    I want to read it for myself.”
    ______________________

    Hank, I say,why don’t you research PRACA and “read it for yourself?” Can you imagine how busy Orly is, already?

  8. Smilin' Pete Gabriel
    August 5th, 2012 @ 9:59 am

    The constitution also treats all morons like Leslie Johnson equally under the law.

    The constitution is an amazing thing!

Leave a Reply