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
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


Posted on | September 26, 2009 | 10 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph. 949-683-5411

fax 949-766-7036 

California State Bar No.: 223433

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com






Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,                  §

                              Plaintiffs,                       §


                    v.                                               §        Civil Action:


Barack Hussein Obama,                             §        SACV09-00082-DOC

Michelle L.R. Obama, Hilary Rodham      §

Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M.       §        PLAINTIFFS’ L-R 7-10

Gates, Secretary of Defense,                       §        MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and        §        FILE SUR-REPLY TO

President of the Senate,                              §        MOTION TO DISMISS

                              Defendants.                   §       



Plaintiffs’ L-R 7-10 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply

To Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to

Defendants’ September 4, 2009 Motion to Dismiss

          Plaintiffs hereby move and request leave of court to file a surreply in response to Defendants’ Reply filed and served on Friday, September 25, 2009.  Plaintiffs cite the following authority from the Local Rules of the Central District of California:


L.R. 7-10 Reply Papers. A moving party may, not later than the seventh calendar date (not excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) before the date designated for the hearing of the motion, serve and file a reply memorandum, and declarations or other rebuttal evidence. Absent prior written order of the Court, the opposing party shall not file a response to the reply.


            Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants have raised new matter in their reply which require an answer. Namely, the Defendants submit cast in a highly prejudicial light to the Plaintiffs’ cause, namely the orders of the Honorable Clay D. Land from the Middle District of Georgia. 

            It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief.  What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after  over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency,  a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land  got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that  Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military.   

            Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of “redressability”, and this matter needs to be clarified in light of the Plaintiffs’ substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen and this charge requires a surreply.

            Finally, the Defendants continue to misrepresent the Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding standing and how standing as a barrier to self-governing enforcement of the Constitution through Petition to Article III Courts (as advocated by the Defendants, in any case) would itself constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process of law in the enforcement of the plain letter of the Constitution.

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ pray, pursuant to L.R. 7-10, that they be allowed to file a surreply to Defendants’ response in this case, and even to do so as late as Thursday, October 1, 2009, especially since they are precluded from filing their Second Amended Complaint prior to the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by this Court’s Minute Order entered Thursday, September 24, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Saturday, September 26, 2009



Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law

(California Bar 223433)

                                                                        Attorney for the Plaintiffs

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ph. 949-683-5411

Fax: 949-766-7036

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com


            I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Saturday, September 26, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Plaintiffs’ L.R. 7-10 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to the following attorneys for the Defendants who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:



ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)

DAVID A. DeJUTE  David.Dejute@usdoj.gov

GARY KREEP usjf@usjf.net

FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819

            DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Saturday the 26th day of September, 2009.




Charles Edward Lincoln, III

Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice

c/o Peyton Yates Freiman

603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6

Austin, Texas 78705



Tel: (512) 923-1889



10 Responses to “Important”

  1. Jeepers
    September 26th, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

    Orly (Lady Liberty) – Your brilliance also amazes me. A sur-reply. Who would have thought? And I see you have a hearing on it for this Thursday. Great idea. Keep this case constantly in front of Judge Carter so that on Monday the 5th he will know it very very well. And know your passion and how your brilliance shines.

    But you are going to have a lot of traveling and court appearig to do, aren’t you? First this on Thursday and then appearing in Georgia on Friday and then back again to Santa Anita on Monday. Lady Liverty, how do you do it.

    I am especially looking forward tothe reports of how the hearing goes on Friday. I understand you have asked for a court order to allow you to testify to some communications with Captain Connie so that you can defend yourself. Another brilliant idea. Who are the witnesses you are bringing to the show cause hearing on Friday!

    As always, good luck this week and next week and keep up the good fight. I have sent you more money today on PayPal. Thank God for the PayPal button.

  2. Dan
    September 26th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

    Here is a question. How come there are no cases filed in the military court?

  3. Ltc. William F. Reade, Jr.
    September 26th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    I would think that the dismissal without grounds would make a good case for a “remand for trial“ from a higher court with an order for “recusal for prejudice“ and/or incompetence, but the world of judges is a strange place. I think this guy pretty well made your/Orly’s case that he should have been ON the case. “First the verdict, Then the trial” worked in Alice in Wonderland. It isn’t good protocol for a Federal court, however as it tends to fly into the face that the 14th amendment guarantees us a right to have our case fully heard by a competent, impartial tribunal. I’d think that your relief would lie there. I’d also think that relief could be found in Cohens V. Virginia where the SCOTUS determined that a court acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution is committing treason; that a court seizing jurisdiction where they have none and failing to exercise jurisdiction where they should is likewise committing treason. OF course, what would SCOTUS know?
    Page 19 U. S. 404
    It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.
    (PS: Judges don’t like to be accused of “treason” but it isn’t us, but rather SCOTUS who levels the charge.)

  4. Will Smith
    September 26th, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

    Dr. Taitz,

    Congratulations on your progress in the Obama Birth Case.

    Please post a layman-friendly summary of the latest developments that my layman friends and I can understand and follow.

    Will Smith
    Allen, TX

  5. PV
    September 26th, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

    If Obama is illegitimate…then won’t any judgements passed by any judge in this country will be illegitimate as well?

  6. Alex
    September 26th, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

    Congratulations! I did not realize the case with Land established standing. That’s what we’ve been waiting for!

  7. truthbetold11
    September 26th, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

    Want to know jesus is in control? I was out fishing today with a friend from argentina and we were talking and i brought up jesus fishing and how they had faith in him and the caught 153 fish. Well we didn’t get a single bite, that all change when i pulled up what i thought was a fish it turned out to be a ROCK, a flat smooth skinny rock. The hook somehow 30 feet down found a microsopic sliver and stuck in that spot and i had a worm on it aswell. You could have 1,000,000,000 fisherman lined up and none could catch a rock with a small hook and a worm in the way. Don’t ever give up on your faith!!! Amen

  8. KBB
    September 28th, 2009 @ 3:34 am

    “If Obama is illegitimate…then won’t any judgements passed by any judge in this country will be illegitimate as well?”——-Not an attorney, but my guess is that if the judge who hands down the judgment was “appointed” by Obama, then it would be an illegitimate, invalid judgment. But, if the judge wasn’t appointed by Obama, it would be a legal judgment.

  9. KBB
    September 28th, 2009 @ 3:36 am

    “Congratulations! I did not realize the case with Land established standing. That’s what we’ve been waiting for!”——WOW, that’s right! I didn’t realize it, either! That’s an awesome accomplishment, Dr. Orly!! So very proud of you, girl!!!

  10. huh?
    September 28th, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

    how does the latest ruling establish standing?