Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP article and Motion for limited discovery
Posted on | October 25, 2009 | 6 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, §
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, §
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, §
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
President of the Senate, § NOTICE OF AP NEWSWIRE
Defendants. § & TO AUTHENTICATE
Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP Newswire
And Motion to Authorize Limited Discovery to Authenticate Newstrail
Re: Scheme to Defraud
Come now the Plaintiffs with this Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP Newswire, embodied and included in the Kenyan publication attached as Exhibit A. Although the contents of this document are self explanatory, this document is classic hearsay: an unsworn out of court statement to be submitted for the truth of the matters stated therein. Moreover, it is unauthenticated, but is allegedly derived from a well-known and highly respected news wire service, namely the Associated Press. If it were possible to authenticate the source for this information, and/or to trace, locate, and depose the authors and informants, and also to track the subsequent changes in the “story” as told over the newswires over the following four years, the Plaintiffs submit that they would obtain additional and important, and very solid, grounds for outlining the contours of a Complaint for Civil Racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)) concerning the 2008 Presidential elections, involving a massive scheme to defraud using the postal (document delivery) and electronic wire services for the purpose of depriving the American People of their intangible right to honest services.
In this Court’s order of September 16, 2009 (Document 66), the Court denied any discovery pending a resolution of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. On October 7, 2009, the Plaintiffs sought ex-parte relief from discovery (Document 82), which the Court denied summarily on October 8 (Document 83). However, in Document 66 the Court specifically qualified its denial of leave to initiate discovery:
All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.
The Court having yet to rule on the Defendant’s (Document 56) Motion to Dismiss, and having expressed significant questions concerning the arguments of all parties concerning the Plaintiffs’ standing under their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs wish to complete the preparation of their Second Amended Complaint in which they will allege that the denial of the intangible right to honest services gives all Plaintiffs, indeed all citizens of the United States, whether natural-born or otherwise, unquestionable standing: namely, the right to sue under Civil R.I.C.O., without any showing of individualized, special, or unique injuries. The denial of the intangible right to honest services, such as the fraudulent theft of election by mail and wire fraud, has millions of victims, but in the basic sense of denial of the intangible right to honest services, none were “more” deprived of “the blessings of liberty” and the right to be governed honestly under the Constitution than any others.
Plaintiffs submit that they need to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of preparing this Second Amended Complaint (to flesh out more fully the extent of the fraud and accordingly solidify with evidence allegations necessary to establish Civil R.I.C.O. standing). They accordingly ask the Court, in addition to taking judicial notice of the A.P. Wire bulletin attached as Exhibit A, to allow the following discovery to take place, addressed to a non-party, non-governmental source:
A deposition duces tecum on 15 days notice (rather than 30) of the custodian of records and archives at “the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization:”
The Associated Press
Headquarters: 450 W. 33rd Street, New York, NY 10001.
There can be no doubt that the information to be retrieved is relevant to framing the Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint. There can be no objection that this deposition will impose too great a burden on the Defendants because it is not addressed to them. There can be no objection that the examination of the history of reporting concerning the history of reportage concerning the national origins, birthplace, citizenship, and life history of the President of the United States world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization will impose any undue burdens on the Defendants, or on the Associated Press as a deponent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request first that this Honorable Court take Judicial Notice of the AP Newswire, and use this information to draw all such reasonable inferences as can and should reasonably be drawn from this. If the proposed deposition is allowed, it will be possible to produce original copies of the wire from 2004 and/or identify the sources for this document, which is today widely available on the internet, but has yet to be officially authenticated. The relevance to this case is weighty, the benefits far exceed the costs, and the Defendants can hardly complain that it will in any sense be unfair to them.
The foreshortened period of 15 days is reasonably requested in light of the deadlines for submitting dispositive motions in the present case according to the Court’s reaffirmed scheduling order.
CONFERENCE OMITTED: in light of the Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ last request to allow limited discovery in this case, the court will recall the splendidly laconic if highly bellicose “NUTS” offered up as an appetizer by U.S. Attorney Roger West on October 7, 2009, there seemed no point to bother conferring with opposing counsel in this case again.
Respectfully submitted,
Sunday, October 25, 2009
/s/ ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
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, Sunday, October 25, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing
Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP Newswire
And Motion to Authorize Limited Discovery to Authenticate Newstrail
Re: Scheme to Defraud
was served on all attorneys of record in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
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 Sunday the 25th day of October, 2009.
/s/Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923-1889
Exhibit A:
Copy of
2004 Story on
State Senator Barack
Obama from
AP Newswire
2004 Kenyan Standard
Comments
6 Responses to “Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP article and Motion for limited discovery”
October 25th, 2009 @ 7:50 am
Congratulation to your work! It will finally come out that the US citizens have been betrayed by Congress, both parties (Democrats + Republicans), election commitee members, by former and sitting Presidents and many more serving the evil shadow government consisting of fraudulent. greedy foreign bankers who want to disarm the US citizens, destroy the US in order gain power over them installing their Empire of the World…
October 25th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Brilliant, Dr. Orly. What a great way to get the AP story before the court.
I’m not sure it will help with standing, thuogh. Or that it relates to standing. Why do you think it relates to standing?
Keep up the great work, Lady Liberty.
October 25th, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
God I pray that the discovery is granted.
If we can just get that kenyan birth certificate filed in court, then all bets are off. There will be a public outcry like they have never heard before and the Congress will be forced to ask him to step down..
PRAY THE LORD THAT THIS HAPPENS.
Keep up the good work Dr. Taitz and thank you for all your hard work on this case. I will send a donation if my modification loan for my house goes through. Another stress I have been waiting 3 weeks for an answer.
October 25th, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
The left wing Associated Press may find a way to squirm out of this. Do we have a plan for countering any hanky panky on their part?
October 26th, 2009 @ 2:22 am
Good news. You can order archived AP stories from factiva.com. It will just cost a few bucks. No need to do any lengthy “discovery”. I checked today and they are there.
October 26th, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Should not DOJ attorneys ROGER E. WEST and DAVID A.DeJUTE, as attorneys for Barack Hussein Obama, be terminated from employment with USDOJ. As USDOJ lawyers their duty is to represent the citizens of the United States and to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. As Obama defense attorneys, their duty is to “legally” seek to undermine the US Constitution and defraud the nation and the American citizans.