Important re Keyes v Obama
Posted on | May 30, 2009 | 15 Comments
In my Keyes v Obama in Fed Court the pleadings and summons were prepared on the 19th and stamped by the court on the 20th ( 19 was a holiday, Martin Luter King)
Does anyone know of a case were a president or another public official was sued as an individual a day before he took office and the complaint and summons were stamped by the court on the day he took office?
Any precedents of service of process of individuals as individuals, who were sued as individuals, for prior wrongdoing but who happen to hold public office? How was Bill Clinton sued by Paula Jones? How did they serve him? Who represented him? From what I recall he was represented by private attorneys, not a US attorney, but I don’t remember how the service of process was done.
Comments
15 Responses to “Important re Keyes v Obama”
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
May 30th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
How did they serve him? Who represented him? From what I recall he was represented by private attorneys, not a US attorney, but I don’t remember how the service of process was done.
___________________________________
Ask Kenneth Star. He is the Dean over at Pepperdine, your neck of the woods. He would be an excellent source of advise and information.
May 30th, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Here is the link for Ken Starr :
HTTP: //LAW.PEPPERDINE.EDU/ACADEMICS/FACULTY/STARR.HTML
Or e-mail him at : KEN.STARR@PEPPERDINE.EDU
Or call him at : 310.506.4621
May 30th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
I called Pepperdine, didn’t hear back. Maybe you can reach him
May 30th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
can you reach him? I couldn’t, i think the university doesn’t relate messages
May 30th, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Orly, it appears in the Paula Jones case they requested a waiver of service of summons under Rule 4(d). BTW, anytime you want to determine what was done in a prior case, just look at the docket for that case.
See the docket entry reflecting such here:
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/01/wright.ruling.docs/docket/
This is the text of Rule 4 regarding waiver:
d) Waiving Service.
(1) Requesting a Waiver.
An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request must:
(A) be in writing and be addressed:
(i) to the individual defendant; or
(ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4(h), to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process;
(B) name the court where the complaint was filed;
(C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid means for returning the form;
(D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, of the consequences of waiving and not waiving service;
(E) state the date when the request is sent;
(F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent — or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States — to return the waiver; and
(G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.
Rule 4 can be viewed in its entirety here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule4.htm
May 30th, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Even in the Pepperdine School of Law was in session (which it is not–commencement was on 5/22/09), it seems unlikely that Dean Kenneth Starr would be in his office today (Saturday). I wouldn’t expect to reach him on a weekend (and maybe not at all for another few weeks, as this is a vacation period), even if school was in session.
May 30th, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Dr. Taitz,
He is a very high powered, and annointed soul. He should be approached by a professional attorney, like yourself, exclusively.
Hold on to this contact, im certain he will hear you.
May 30th, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
who are you talking about?
May 30th, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Ken Starr.
May 30th, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
To answer your questions related to the Jones v. Clinton case, Jones did not file her sexual harrassment lawsuit against Clinton until 5/6/94, well over two years AFTER Clinton’s first inauguration, so Clinton was already the sitting President when Jones filed initially.
Clinton was represented by private counsel, two attorneys associated with two different firms in Little Rock, AR, and one attorney associated with a Wash. DC law firm.
On 5/16/94, President Clinton’s lead counsel (Robert Bennett, Little Rock) was given a standard form “waiver of service of summons” (in order for the plaintiff (Jones) to avoid the complications and cost of service of summons under FRCP Rule 4, which would have otherwise been required in order to properly serve the President). Bennett, on behalf of Clinton, executed the form, and it was filed with the court. Had Jones not received Clinton’s agreement to the “waiver of service of summons,” then she/her attorney would have been required to serve the summons in accordance with FRCP Rule 4.
It’s actually pretty standard practice, in cases involving government officials, for the plaintiff to request the “waiver of service of summons” through the defendant(s)’ attorney(s). We keep the forms in our office (it’s a standard legal form, and we order them in pad form). I can’t remember off the top of my head what the form # is, but it’s a standard form that every attorney I know who does any federal litigation keeps on hand as a matter of course.
Now, the defendant federal official(s) being asked to waive the service of summons via that standard form request is certainly not obligated to agree to the waiver. In that case, where the waiver request is refused, then service of summons to the defendant(s) must proceed in accordance with FRCP Rule 4. And, naturally, when no request for waiver of service of summons is filed by the plaintiff (as in your Keyes v. Obama case) then service of summons in accordance with FRCP Rule 4 is required. It’s not the responsibility of the defendant(s) to either comply with FRCP Rule 4 or to offer a waiver of service of summons. That’s the responsibility of the plaintiff (and their attorney).
As to the date your complaint in Keyes v. Obama was prepared and/or signed, that’s irrelevant. The date that counts is the date it is filed with the court. Otherwise, cases could be filed (such as malpractice cases) well past (even, theoretically, years past) the expiration date of a statute of limitations with the claim of “Well, I wrote it and signed it before the S-O-L expiration date; I just didn’t file it.” Anyone could file anything at any time claiming to have written/signed it at some earlier date, and claiming that was controlling. According to the court receipt stamp on your initial filing, it was filed on 1/20/09 at about 3:30 p.m. PST, or about 6½ hours after Barack Obama was inaugurated. Thus, at the date/time of filing, one of your defendants (Obama) was already the sitting President. FRCP Rule 4 applied.
Sorry.
May 30th, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
sorry, his inauguration wasn’t valid, as he has messed up the oath and poor Roberts had to work the double shift and give him another oath, a make up test. This is well documented. It looks like this technicality will cost him
May 30th, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
FRCP apply whether he was President, was not president, or even if he were simply a private individual at the time.
You filed your action in Federal Court, that is why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The only question raised by the “Pres or not Pres” issue is which section of Rule 4 is relevant. The Rule still must be complied with!
May 30th, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Dr Orly, oaths are messed up massively every day and rulings of preceding screw ups have always been OK’d by judges in court challenges or ruled on re-administering the oath.
May 30th, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
Sorry no. Even if that was so, he was still president-elect and equally as untouchable.
After all, aren’t you looking for a case where a president was president-elect and sued and yet you still can’t locate one?
May 31st, 2009 @ 12:36 am
Hey, maybe Chief Justice Roberts messed up the oath on purpose to create this opening for our hero, Dr. Taitz!
No, I’m totally kidding. As CNN pointed out, Obama became president at noon, regardless of when he took the oath. Check out the 20th Amendment:
“1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.”