Update Keyes et al v Obama et al
Posted on | June 11, 2009 | 17 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz
Attorney-at-Law
Orly Taitz Law Offices
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone: (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
Alan Keyes, Ph.D., Willey S. Drake, and §
Markham Robinson, §
Plaintiffs, § Civil Action No.:
§ SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
v. §
§
Barack H. Obama, et al., §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY &
REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY 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 (Docket Repot Document 8) signed on June 1, 2009, by Deputy Clerk R. La Chapelle.
There were two points of deficiency noticed on June 1, 2009, 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 court’s website 11/18/03).
On June 2, 2009, submitted the June 2, 2009, “General Affidavit” of Process server Mary Ann McKiernan as Document 10-2 along with Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Motion for Default.”
The 11/18/2003 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 4(e)((1)….” 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 officer 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;
(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)(2)(C) of Rule 4 and submits that the June 2, 2009, affidavit of Mary Ann McKinernan is incontrovertible proof of proper service of process under Rule 4(e)(2)(C).
The June 10, 2009 (Docket Report Document 12) signed by A. DeAvila omits the first item checked on the June 1, 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 11/18/2003 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 RELIEF
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Thursday, June 11, 2009
By:________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Comments
17 Responses to “Update Keyes et al v Obama et al”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
June 11th, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Dear Orly,
I have no background in law except for ethics and laws in nursing for patient care. Does this mean you’ll get a court date for Dr. Keyes and Soetero has to answer and can’t stall anymore? I know how busy you are, but could you tell us in layman’s terms what this means? I feel a little funny for asking, but I want to know what this specifically means, and I’m sure there are others like me who are wondering.
Thank you so much…..and God Bless You.
June 11th, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Thanks for posting that! Now I’ll have something else to talk with the court about in the morning, when I call them, and another topic link to send them, and that’s great, since they seem really interested in that!
One thing that came up today in the calls/emails between me and the court, what about the other defendants besides Obama? Are they just automatically dismissed, since there is no proof about service?
Thanks again!
June 11th, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Orly, here is yet another person who is clearly getting the political shaft from Obama.
[[ WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to fire the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs amid a controversy between the IG and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. ]]
https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6473477.html
Apparently, Inspector General Gerald Walpin was capably doing his job in uncovering corruption on the part of a favored Democrat, but guess who does not want the Democrat mayor/basketball star to lose his ‘benefits’ paid for by patriot taxpayers.
Would I.G. Walpin have the required (read: fictional) “standing” to demand proof that the White House resident firing him actually has the legitimate right to do so?
June 11th, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
They just keep playing games Orly. It is truly despicable. Don’t give up.
June 12th, 2009 @ 12:45 am
I found this post at https://rightsoup.com let’s see if anyone in the MSM reports on this…..WOW….This is HUGE!!!!!!! What is our government up to now??????
Jackie:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Japanese Detained In Italy; Concealed $134.5 BILLION Of U.S. Government Bonds In Briefcase
June 11, 2009
Posted by: Erin
Not a peep yet from U.S. mainstream media, but Italian authorities have detained 2 Japanese nationals who were attempting to cross into Switzerland with $134.5 BILLION in U.S. Government Bonds… hidden in a false-bottomed briefcase. This is HUGE news. PDF of the Italian Government’s news release is here, with more pictures.
The Italian financial authorities haven’t yet determined whether the bonds are real or fake, but if they are genuine, the attempt to take them into Switzerland would be the largest financial smuggling operation in history; if they are fake, the matter would still be astonishing… because the quality of the counterfeit work is so good that the fake bonds are reportedly indistinguishable from real ones.
The bonds include 249 US Federal Reserve bonds worth US$ 500 million each, plus ten Kennedy bonds and other US government securities worth a billion dollars each. Bonds are rarely issued in certificate (paper) form any more…an electronic account entry of the asset is the norm. It’s safer, for one thing. Unless you are trying to launder some money.
For most of their history after World War II, Treasury notes have been issued with denominations never rising above a high of $1 million. Yet, from 1955 to 1969, the Treasury issued Treasury notes with the added denominations of $100 million and $500 million. Some of the seized bonds, especially the Kennedys, may be what are called “bearer bonds” that are “negotiable”, basically like cash. Whoever has possession of a bearer-bond can claim ownership. Widespread fraud and theft dangers caused the securities industry to cease issuing bearer-bonds many years ago.
To use paper bond certificates of any kind would cause scrutiny by a reputable financial institution today, especially if said bonds were bearer-bonds. It’s very likely that real or counterfeit, these bonds were headed for a black-market transaction. So who is trying to rip off, skate off with, or launder $134 Billion Dollars? That’s half of a freaking TARP. Two Japanese men in their 50’s? Only governments would have such a pile.
If the certificates are real, Italy just won the lottery… their money laundering laws inflict a 40% penalty for failure to declare instruments and cash in excess of $10,000 Euros, which means they’d score a windfall of around $40 billion dollars.
Want to get REALLY conspiratorial? On March 30th, the Wall Street Journal said this…notice the number in bold.
Treasury Has $134.5 Billion Left in TARP MARCH 30, 2009
The Treasury Department said it has about $134.5 billion left in its financial-rescue fund, giving the Obama administration a cushion as it implements expensive programs aimed at unlocking credit markets and boosting ailing industries. The figure means that about 81% of the $700 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has been committed. It also means that the Obama administration may not have to go to Congress to request additional funds, at least until well into the year. Many lawmakers who criticized the administration’s bank-rescue efforts have vowed to oppose any requests for more money for …
And interestingly, from Reuters, is this:
“U.S. TIC data show that during the 12 months ending January 2007, Japanese investors bought just $18.2 billion in Treasury coupons, or approximately $1.5 billion a month, a sharp contrast from the 12 months ending January 2005 when Japanese investors purchased $134.5 billion of U.S. government debt, McCarthy noted.”
Something stinks, so keep your eye on this one. The amount involved is MASSIVE, the city where they were seized is a financial gateway to Switzerland, and you’d have to have giant balls to try and fake out the Swiss with counterfeits in this way. Not that you could. Pressure is mounting in Congress for an audit of the Fed. Our government obviously knows about this catch by the Italians…but it seems they, and our media, don’t want you to.
June 12th, 2009 @ 1:54 am
The Clerk of Court is full of it. Under the Civil Rules of Federal Procedure, all that is erquired to prove proof of service is an affidavit by the server. That was supplied in this case. Therefore, proof of service has been submitted.
Rule 4 Section l
(l) Proving Service.
(1) Affidavit Required.
Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server’s affidavit.
June 12th, 2009 @ 1:55 am
Correction – mistype: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
June 12th, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Orly, this article adds details to my comment 5439.
[[ What’s behind Obama’s sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general? ]]
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html
June 12th, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
More revelations, same Inspector General Gerald Walpin issue.
[[ Maya outlined a list of legal and ethical concerns about the operation of the charter schools. Among the claims was that a board member had deleted Johnson’s e-mails during a federal investigation into the misuse of public funds at St. HOPE Academy.
. . .
However, Maya’s claims . . . prompted Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, to call for the U.S. attorney’s office to take action. ]]
https://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1940228.html
June 12th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
“the name of the person served does not match the complaint”. So does this mean his name really is Barry Soetoro?
June 12th, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Dr. Taitz,
AS Bob said above the court clerk is full of it. And what did the judge/clerk mean today, Friday, when they said rule 4e isn’t the same as Rule 4i ??? Can you explain to us what in the heck this rule 4 stuff is, and how we can contact the court to help you
June 12th, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
It would be really great for you to take Bob’s advice and proceed swiftly to obtain a default judgment against the usurper.
June 12th, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Hungry,
I didn’t see the clerks comment, but he is right in saying 4E isn’t the same as 4I . The point is 4I DOES NOT apply in this case. 4I calls for :
(2)Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued in an Official Capacity.
(3) Officer or Employee Sued Individually
Now under (3):
To serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf
He is not being sued for an ACT in connection with DUTIES PERFORMED on the United States ‘behalf nor is he being sued in an official capacity as in (2)
He is being sued as an individual itself. Therefore, only Rule 4e applies.
From the lawsuit itself :
Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson,
Plaintiffs
v.
Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barack H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro; Condoleeza Rice, in her capacity as Secretary of State; Robert Mueller, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management; and DOES 1-100
Notice he is NOT being sued in his official capacity. The lawsuit is based on the executive order issued by President George w. Bush on the 01.16.09. The executive order provides for Reciprocity and Reinvestigation of Individuals in positions of public trust.
THEREFORE, the Clerk once again is FULL OF IT. This clerk should actually READ the lawsuit he is making judgements on.
June 13th, 2009 @ 12:04 am
To Hmmm,
“the name of the person served does not match the complaint”
That is irrelevant . Under 4e2C :
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:
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
So obviously if you are serving it to an agent, the name would not match the person being sued.
It is interesting to watch the games this clerk is playing. First he denies it by saying the names don’t match. 4e shows that the names don’t have to match. So then he says 4e doesn’t apply and that 4i does ( which is not the case if you read my above ). So lets say 4i did apply. It would be part 3 of 4i. What does part 3 say ?:
To serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an official capacity), a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g)
So you would have to serve the United States ( which of course would not match the name on the complaint ) AND also follow procedures under – guess what ? – 4E. As has already been shown, 4E does not require that the names have to match. This Clerk seems to be making law on his own by stating that the names have to match. Sounds like he wants to be an appellate court judge in the future – make your own laws from the bench.
June 13th, 2009 @ 11:40 am
May be some confusion for those reading this. When I mention :
So then he says 4e doesn’t apply and that 4i does ( which is not the case if you read my above ).
That comment was moved to a separate posting ( you can see it on the front page To Hungry,), so it is not in this comment section. My only other comment is on rule 4L ( used lower case l so some may interpret it as i ) That comment is not the 4i comment I am referring to.
June 14th, 2009 @ 12:52 am
Jake Tapper has learned more details about Obama’s firing of IG Gerald Walpin.
https://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/more-details-emerge-in-president-obamas-firing-of-inspector-general.html
June 14th, 2009 @ 1:08 am
Orly, this is the page where the Office of Inspector General Corporation for National and Community Service (i.e., Gerald Walpin’s office) lists its audit reports.
https://www.cncsig.gov/AuditReports.html
A report here includes information about Michelle Obama’s involvement in the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
[[ Some decisions about CNCS are being made by First Lady Michelle Obama, according to service advocates (who asked not to be named). Last week, Mrs. Obama announced that her chief of staff, Jackie Norris, would move to CNCS as a senior adviser. . . .
Asked why the announcement of Walpin’s removal came late Wednesday from CNCS instead of the White House, Schmelzer of CNCS said it’s because Walpin – who serves at the pleasure of the president – is a corporation employee. ]]
https://www.youthtoday.org/publication/article.cfm?article_id=2949