The following transaction was entered on 8/18/2017 at 10:58 AM CDT and filed on 8/18/2017

Docket Text:
MOTION to Unseal Document #[462] by Orly Taitz, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2017. (dnoriega, 1)

1. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687

US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

Texas et al   )                                               Case # 14-cv-254

v                    )                                          HONORABLE ANDREW HANEN

US                 )

Motion to unseal pleadings ECF Document #462, Opposition by Plaintiff-Intervener, Taitz, to Motion to Dismiss by Defendents-Interveners, Jane-Does, which was improperly sealed by a secretary-case manager Crisitina Sustaeta on 08.15.2017.

On 08.115.2017 secretary-case manager to Honorable Andrew Hanen, Ms. Sustaeta, has sealed the pleadings and exhibits of the Opposition to Motion to dismiss the case at hand.ECF #462(see the pleadings and exhibits attached).  No ECF document-notification was ever sent to the parties to advise them that this opposition was ever filed. Taitz called the clerk’s office and was told by a clerk that the pleadings were sealed and entered as “sealed event” per  instructions of the case manager, Cristina Sustaeta. Taitz asked to be connected to her and left a message for Ms. Sustaeta advising her that Taitz redacted all Social Security numbers in the exhibits and checked twice and no other information was supposed to be redacted and the documents were improperly sealed, and need to be unsealed. Ms. Sustata never called back and kept the whole document sealed, invisible to the public, to the parties in the case and possibly to the presiding judge.

ARGUMENT

The pleadings and the exhibits need to be unsealed for the following reasons:

1. An order to seal the pleadings or exhibits should come from a judge, not from a secretary.
2. If there is any problem with the document, the judge would order the party to redact a specific part of the document and re-file it. Additionally, there has to be a notification via ECF showing to the parties in the case and the public at large, who filed the pleadings, what is the title of the pleadings and all parts of the pleadings and exhibits that did not need redacting, if any. Outright sealing of the document by a secretary without an opportunity to correct or redact, if needed, represents an outright violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and First Amendment right of Redress of Grievances and Free Speech, which is done under the color of authority.

There is a history of Ms. Sustaeta depriving Taitz of her Due Process rights under the color of authority. On 12.01.2015 Honorable Judge Hanen issued an order ECF # 313, where he ordered all prospective interveners to appear in court. The court wrote: “the Court wishes the parties and those who have expressed an interest in becoming parties to be ready to address the effect of the Fifth Circuit’s Jane Doe(s) Opinion on the rights of individuals to intervene in this case. The Court is particularly concerned about the possible applicability of that opinion to parties beyond the three Jane Does discussed therein. To date, the following individuals have filed motions to intervene in the above named cause of action: Mitchell Williams [Doc. No. 40]; Orly Taitz [Doc. No. 137]; Harold William Van Allen [Doc. No. 295]; Joe Arpaio [Doc. No.220]; and Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and Jane Doe #3 [Doc. No. 91]. The Court also wants the parties and those who have expressed an interest in becoming parties to be ready to address the extent to which the intervenors are going to participate in this matter. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to make sure that all who sought to intervene and their counsel, if any, get notice of this order and this scheduled hearing. “ In spite of the express order by Judge Hanen, Ms Sustaeta removed Taitz from the Electronic Court Filing (ECF) distribution list and never notified Taitz either electronically or by mail. Taitz could have been found in contempt of court for not showing up at the hearing. Only a day before the hearing,  Taitz   read a news-paper article (Exhibit A) about this court hearing which had an attached order. Upon reading in the article that she was supposed to appear in court, she took a red eye flight with two connections and appeared in court. At the subsequent hearing Hon. Andrew Hanen ordered Ms. Sustaeta to place Taitz back on the ECF distribution list.

Additionally, in a related case,  14-cv-119 exhibits were removed from the court filings that were submitted to court by mail by Taitz. This was done without any order to do so by Hon. Judge Hanen and Ms. Sustaeta was the case manager in that case as well.

CONCLUSION-PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Hon. Judge Hanen should unseal ECF #462 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and attached exhibits. Ms. Sustaeta should be relieved of her position as the case manager or there should an administrative reprimand so in the future she does not abuse her power and does not deprive under color of authority parties before this court of their Constitutional rights of Due Process, Redress of Grievances and Freedom of Speech.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

08.17.2017

1. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687

US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

Texas et al   )                                               Case # 14-cv-254

v                    )                                          HONORABLE ANDREW HANEN PRESIDING

US                 )

OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER TAITZ TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS-INTERVENERS JANE DOES TO DISMISS THE CASE AS MOOT

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE PLEADINGS.

The President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Doctor and Attorney, Orly Taitz, was a plaintiff in a related case Taitz v Johnson et al 14-cv-119. Taitz filed motions to join the cases and alternatively to become an intervener in the case at hand. The motion to join was denied. There was never a ruling on the motion to become an intervener. On 12.01.2015 this Honorable Court ordered all interveners, including Taitz, to appear at a hearing  for the court to decide whether their intervener status should be granted. (ECF 313) At the hearing held on December 15, 2015, at 1:30 pm, Honorable Judge Hanen denied the motions by prospective interveners: Sheriff Arpaio, Harold Van Allen and Mitchell Williams and dismissed them from the case. However, the court did not dismiss Taitz and took under submission the motion by Taitz. The media widely followed the matter and wrote about the aforementioned order and Taitz’s intervener status.  https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/12/judge-to-hold-hearing-on-arpaio-taitz-roles-in-immigration-suit-216757  (Exhibit A)

 As of now, Taitz was never denied her motion for  intervener status and for that reason she is filing the opposition at hand.

The summary of the motion is that Taitz opposes the dismissal of the case at hand proposed by the Defense interveners, Jane Does. ECF 455. Taitz argues that the case should not be dismissed, but rather expedited to trial and to the resolution on the merits for three reasons. Firstly, the motion to dismiss is premature as the court is yet to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint and expand the case to DACA. Since DAPA and DACA revolve around similar orders and the same constitutional questions, Taitz believed that the motion to amend should be granted. Secondly, even if the motion to amend is not granted, the motion to dismiss should be denied as the case at hand is a classic matter capable of repetition, yet evading review, akin to Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). For this reason the case should not be dismissed. Thirdly,  DAPA and DACA orders were unconstitutional not only because President Obama encroached  into the constitutional domain of the US congress, but also because the evidence (Exhibit B) shows that he used a stolen CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 and multiple fabricated IDs to assert his identity and legitimacy to the US presidency, which makes all of the laws and executive orders signed by him, null and void. Among others, those include DAPA, DACA  and ACA (Affordable Care Act), which is also known as Obamacare and which is currently being discussed in the US Senate under Graham-Cassidy repeal act. Furthermore, this issue is not moot, but requires urgent adjudication on the merits as top DOJ officials were involved and complicit in the cover up of above mentioned fabricated IDs. Among them, former Director of the FBI and current special counsel (special prosecutor), Robert Mueller, and former US Attorney for the District of Maryland and current Deputy Attorney General, who appointed Mueller, Rod Rosenstein.    The interests of Judicial Economy require adjudication on the merits to resolve all related disputes once and for all.      

ARGUMENT

1. The case at hand should not be dismissed as the court is yet to rule on the plaintiffs’ request for stay. Additionally, both DACA and DAPA revolve around the same issues of the executive branch, President Obama, encroaching into legitimate functions of the US congress and attempting to create a new class of illegal aliens, new legislations in regards to them and circumvent existing immigration laws by executive fiat. Further, the Fifth Circuit found that all three programs (DAPA, DACA and Extended DACA) grant the same relief and were all issued without notice-and-comment procedure, Texas, 809 F.3d at 147-48. The interests of the Judicial Economy would require to adjudicate both matters simultaneously. As such, dismissal prior to adjudication on the motion to amend and include DACA is premature at best and should fail on the merits as well.
2. Even if in unlikely scenario this court denies the plaintiffs’ motion to amend and include DACA, the court should still deny the motion by the Defendant-Intervener Jane Doe, as the case at hand is a classic case of a dispute capable of repetition, yet evading review, akin to Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). In Roe women- plaintiffs would no longer be pregnant by the time the court was ready to adjudicate.

Here, Doe argues that the case is moot because President Trump has repealed DAPA executive orders. However, we do not live in a one party tyranny, like China or North Korea. We live in a multi-party democracy. Statistically, every 8-12 years the party in power changes. In 8-12 years we are likely to  have a president from the Democratic party, who will fetch out of the trash bin the DAPA order, repealed by President Trump, and will revive it.  DAPA and DACA orders are a must for the Democratic party for two reason:

 (a)   Majority of illegal aliens, when naturalized, vote for the Democratic party. As such, DAPA and DACA, which are the road to eventual naturalizations, is a life line for the Democratic party, a panacea for growing the voter base, particularly in red and purple states.

(b) Legalization of illegal aliens creates a magnet for more illegal immigration. This provides the ruling globalist oligarchy, that supports all of Democratic party candidates, an unending supply of desired cheap labor.

Based on all of the above, it is clear that if the case is dismissed as moot now, some 8-12 years from now the controversy at hand will be revived by the next president and it will require litigation anew, and over three years of current litigation will be for naught.  This shows that the case at hand fits the mold of Roe v Wade, as the case capable of repetition, yet evading review and, as such, is not moot.     

Further, inadvertently, Does bring forward precedents and arguments that work against their own motion. Does cite Powell and Friends of the Earth:

A “case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496-97 (1969); Hope Med. Grp. for Women v. Edwards, 63 F.3d 418, 422 (5th Cir. 1995). This can happen if “subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 203 (2000). ECF 454 p7.

As stated above, allegedly wrongful behavior is reasonably expected to occur as the next Democratic Party president is reasonably expected to revive DAPA and DACA orders.  As such, the arguments brought forward by the movant lead to the logical conclusion which is opposite to their desired result of dismissal. The fact that the next Democratic Party president is reasonably expected to revive aforementioned orders means that the case is not moot and should not be dismissed.

Fantasy Ranch Inc. v. City of Arlington 459 F.3d 546, 564 (5th Cir. 2006) and similar cases are not relevant in the case at hand. Fantasy Ranch and other similar cases deal with specific ordinances and laws being enacted and repealed by the legislature.

The quintessence of the case at hand is that President Obama went rogue and on a whim issued executive orders that go against the will of the legislature and existing US laws and against the desire of the legislature. The Fifth Circuit found the case moot in Fantasy Ranch because the legislature corrected the offended action. DAPA and DACA, on the other hand,  offend the legislature. DAPA and DACA are an assault on the US legislature, namely US Congress. US Congress cannot amend the offending legislature, as it was done in Fantasy Ranch, the court needs to find it to be unconstitutional and affront to the US legislature itself.

ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IS PREFERRABLE TO STAY AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY

Adjudication on the merits will prevent future similar litigations. Proposed stay and a settlement agreement will be only a temporary reprieve, as the next president might issue DAPA and DACA orders anew. Judicial economy would favor adjudication of the matter on the merits in order to prevent future similar litigation. Court findings of  unconstitutionality of DAPA and DACA will prevent future presidents from issuing such orders. Further, the court’s ruling on Barack Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 and fabricated IDs will resolve once and for all the issue of unconstitutionality of all bills, laws and executive orders signed by Barack Obama, among them  DAPA, DACA and ACA, aka Obamacare, which are still being litigated.

The only other viable alternative would be a settlement, whereby the defendants, USA et al, agree not to enact DAPA and DACA orders in the future, admit that those orders were unconstitutional, and admit that due to Barack Obama’s use of fabricated IDs as a basis for his identity and eligibility, any and all executive orders, bills and laws signed by him, including DAPA, DACA and ACA, are null and void ab initio.

CONCLUSION

Based on all of the above, this Honorable Court should deny the motion to dismiss by Defendant-Interveners Jane Does and should order expedited discovery and trial schedule for resolution of the case on the merits.

Respectfully,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

08.04.17

Exhibit A

Judge to hold hearing on Arpaio, Taitz roles in immigration suit

By JOSH GERSTEIN

12/14/2015 06:07 PM EST

The main front in the legal war over President Barack Obama’s immigration policies may have moved to the Supreme Court, but a federal judge in Texas isn’t letting that stop him from taking up a curious side issue in the case: whether birther Orly Taitz and controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio are entitled to join the fight.

Both sides in the lawsuit that halted Obama’s latest round of immigration moves nearly a year ago have told U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen they want the case put on ice until the Supreme Court announces whether it will take up the major executive power dispute — a decision expected as soon as next month.

In a little-noticed order earlier this month, Hanen set a hearing for Tuesday afternoon on the proposal to stay the case. However, he went on to say he wanted the parties to address whether to allow several other individuals to intervene in the litigation, among them Taitz and Arpaio.

“The Court … wants the parties and those who have expressed an interest in becoming parties to be ready to address the extent to which the intervenors are going to participate in this matter,” Hanen wrote.

The judge’s call to dive into the issue and for the proposed intervenors or their attorneys to show up in person has left some immigrants’ rights advocates suspicious.

“You’ve got a joint motion to stay the merits. … It’s difficult to understand why this has to be taken up right now as the Supreme Court is considering it,” said David Leopold, an Ohio-based immigration attorney and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association. “It has the potential of unnecessarily adding more politics to a case that’s already politically charged.”

Last month, a split three-judge appeals court panel sided with Hanen and refused to overturn his injunction against Obama’s new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans initiative and his expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. However, the same panel voted unanimously to uphold the rights of three unnamed illegal immigrants to intervene in the case to protect their interests.

Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod gave various reasons for the ruling and noted that one reason the women cited was that the federal government may have alienated Hanen by issuing about 100,000 permits despite the injunction. The feds have blamed the issuances on bureaucratic foul-ups and have insisted the government did not intend to mislead the court.

Hanen said in his order (posted here) that he is “particularly concerned about the possible applicability of [the appeals court ruling] to parties beyond the three Jane Does discussed therein.” He went on to list Taitz, Arpaio and several other people who sought to join in the high-profile court battle.

Taitz and Arpaio have previously struck out with similar efforts. https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/12/judge-to-hold-hearing-on-arpaio-taitz-roles-in-immigration-suit-216757

The filing had an attachment of a redacted version of the file below

Evidence of Obama’s use of bogus IDs compiled by Attorney Orly Taitz

Evidence of forgery, fraud, fabrication in Obama’s IDs

17 Responses to “Evidence on Barack Obama, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller is hidden from the public view by a secretary in Federal Court”

1. Kelly Hoffman
   August 18th, 2017 @ 3:04 pm

   Way to call her out, Orly. It is sickening what so many court offices are doing – so illegal! What is happening to this country?????

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 18th, 2017 @ 3:06 pm

   it is exhausting to fight all of these battles

3. Danny Stewart
   August 18th, 2017 @ 4:29 pm

   AG Sessions should get involved, however, I’m not holding my breath.

4. Paula Hoehn
   August 18th, 2017 @ 8:55 pm

   Dear Orly,

   I salute your bravura filing! It is a terrible injustice the amount of illegal fiddling done by court underlings. I remember the missing Page 11 in the 1964 divorce filings of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama vs Obama Sr. in HI. I believe that missing page referred to actual birth evidence of usurper-obummer and was therefore suppressed by the court and/or court underlings.

   I applaud your strength in pursuing your years-long court efforts to reveal the truth of usurper-obummer’s ineligibility for President.

   Also, I am making a donation to help with your court and travel expenses.

   ——-
   Paula Hoehn

5. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 18th, 2017 @ 11:55 pm

   thank you

6. Starlight
   August 19th, 2017 @ 9:42 am

   I agree with Paula and it is only
   when and if she gets enough sleep, exercise,
   good diet (good food, not junk food)
   and maybe a day of fun and frolicking,

   and realizes that the Creator is on
   her side, as well as prayers of
   her readers, then Dr. Orly can carry
   on her mission of justice for
   Americans, and penalties for the
   likes of Obama and company.

   It is a long, rough road, and
   these have been strenuous years
   for her.

   It is beyond admirable and she is truly
   an unsung heroine.

7. Bravo, ORLY!!!!!!
   August 19th, 2017 @ 12:49 pm

   You are superb, Orly!

   You have the courage of Joan ‘D Arc!

   And you are correct!

   I always keep you in my prayers, every day!

   Everyone keep prayers for Orly and Trump and America going strong!

8. Bravo, ORLY!!!!!!
   August 19th, 2017 @ 12:52 pm

   And some good news…Hang tough, MR President!

   https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-lawyer-cobb-predicts-quick-end-mueller-013849602.html

   And these lefties keep trying to come up with angles to mess with President Trump!

   Trump is our President and Orly is a tough customer, too!

   God bless them both!

9. steve wittlake
   August 19th, 2017 @ 1:17 pm

   I hope you get all three people. The all deserve to spending eternity where the do not wish to go.

10. fred wahl
    August 20th, 2017 @ 6:41 am

    keep it up!!!

11. Virginia W.
    August 20th, 2017 @ 8:05 am

    Our Justice Dept. is just a fraction better than when holder & lynch were at helm. IMHO, Sessions is there to keep Pres. in check. If he were the warrior we all wished he was, both sides would be treated equally and punished equally. Boston is the perfect example. The ill-informed, uneducated, mentally deficient, history-ignorant, co-dependent, self-medicated, rage-filled dime store whores of the Democrat leaders were allowed to create chaos, mayhem, injuries and just 33 parasites were arrested.

    Only way your evidence will reach him is to hand deliver it to someone like James Woods or Chuck Woolery who would probably be given access to him.

    God bless you Orly and thank you. You, President Trump and each & every patriot are in my daily prayers. God help America.

12. Gary Vincent
    August 20th, 2017 @ 8:09 am

    How about you or a surrogate meeting him at Trump Tower? I don’t trust the “generals” as far as I could throw them.

13. Donna
    August 20th, 2017 @ 9:56 am

    Our government is so crooked ,it’s unbelievable. Every one of our representatives KNOW Barry was and is a fraud. I call my congressman’s office about 7 times a year thinking he will listen and do something about the fraud,but it goes nowhere. THEY PUT HIM in OFFICE! It makes me wonder WHO really have that idiot life?

14. Bill Reade
    August 20th, 2017 @ 4:03 pm

    I am filing an amicus brief in support of your motion to unseal, along with some data that has been overlooked. Obama is not an American Citizen.

15. D.C.
    August 22nd, 2017 @ 12:17 pm

    Boy, how I hope that Orly can bring some light on this subject!

    Judge Hanen can become a real live Patriot, once he rules in your favor, Orly!

    This could become a real catalyst for helping you, America, and Trump and all of us!

    So don’t anyone give up!

16. Ray
    August 24th, 2017 @ 8:07 pm

    This is headed right where it belongs – to the trash bin.

17. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    August 24th, 2017 @ 9:08 pm

    what belongs in the trash bin? The truth and any remnants of justice that we had?

Leave a Reply