The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Main Document
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply 10-01-09.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/1/2009] [FileNumber=8537672-0]
[02d11d5373b8afd49c5c1453d0c7780fa367a60550c052f4e7c5cbb53aedba9d52a3
13dc937af64bf4f51d0302068229a184fde32385fa6814a2c2a157b184f8]]
Document description:Exhibit Letter from snator Sessions
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Senator Sessions.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/1/2009] [FileNumber=8537672-1]
[7ffff39b58f42215dd93178b1379fff7f82ae974623a341d9204b9d0ba38b129f9b2
509a48a05163b3ff2d67497938bf9f83b99942285df65cbda9964d4d2ac5]]
Document description:Exhibit Quo Warranto request submitted to Atty Gen Eric Holder
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Holder 1,2.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/1/2009] [FileNumber=8537672-2]
[10a71f933ac21b4d6efeaad81ec3cd9cde818793dbea40dcf37e3cccb85742e8b92c
e8a4cc488257e2237a88b9b7d8497250d429a0ae15fa3c4ddfffa4c8e0e8]]
Document description:Exhibit Request for investigations of Obama’s background from the office of the Sec of State of KY
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\KY secretary of state.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/1/2009] [FileNumber=8537672-3]
[84894d92c1e6cc5d42cd5d76b183ee80d34a255c214be465004e313efbe921fac7ba
909e4f0eed98f373d990fe65eb6abc3cc2a63327faa2df28c1b26706ff7a]]
Document description:Exhibit Affidavit PI Susan Daniels-Obama’s use of SS number of the deceased
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Affidavit of Susan Daniels.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/1/2009] [FileNumber=8537672-4]
[13b958288b7e974df936c33a9e8cebba002c09594029fd7dcb7fafb695082fa41569
fe169efdba4b50e977e415282a01a357afaba1ecce78d3ed5c02192e4c11]]

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7036

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, §

§ Civil Action:

v. §

§

SACV09-00082-DOC

Barack Hussein Obama, et al. §

Defendants. §

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply: the Ninth Amendment, etc.

In their Reply, Doc. 72, the Defendants first attack Plaintiffs’ response (at p. 1

of their Reply, Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, Doc. 72, 09/25/2009, p. 2 of 11) by

contending that, “Plaintiffs’ Reliance on the Ninth Amendment is Misplaced.” In

support of this assertion, the Defendants cite not one single Supreme Court case, but

instead a line of 9

constitution itself, but to Lawrence H. Tribe’s 1998 textbook entitled

Constitutional Law

rule of constitutional construction inexcusably contradicts the Supreme Court’s

repeated holdings (relevant to the construction of Article II, Sec. 1 qualifications for

President, as well as the Ninth Amendment, both of great importance to the

resolution of this case) that, “

constitution is intended to be without effect

th Circuit Cases which goes back, ultimately, not to any text of theAmerican1. Tribe’s quoted statement concerning the Ninth Rule as ait cannot be presumed that any clause in the.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.

1

holdings from this Circuit such as, “Rights under Ninth Amendment are only those so basic and

fundamental and so deeply rooted in our society to be truly “essential rights,” and which nevertheless,

cannot find direct support elsewhere in Constitution.

165, 78-2 USTC P 9620, 57 ALR Fed 678, cert den (1978) 439 US 953, 58 L Ed 2d 344, 99 S Ct 350.

Plaintiffs contend that the right to limit the Presidency exclusively to “natural born citizens” is one of those

that can indeed be described as so deeply rooted in our society as to be an “essential right.”

The Defendant’s line of Ninth Circuit cases is, however, not at all exhaustive, and excludes earlierUnited States v Choate (1978, CA9 Cal) 576 F2d

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

2

137; 2 L.Ed. 60; 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). In interpreting the Constitution, “

effect should be given to all the words it uses

United States

addresses whether Congress may enact legislation withholding the removal power of

executive branch officers from other branches of government, see below).

More consistent with the

the Ninth Amendment advanced by Professor Randy E. Barnett. Barnett takes the

position that the Ninth Amendment operates as an active source of rights and cannot

be “void where prohibited by law”. Plaintiffs submit that Barnett’s 2004 learned

treatise

published by the Princeton University Press, is both admissible and susceptible to

judicial notice pursuant to FRE 803(18) and Plaintiffs ask this Court to take judicial

notice of Barnett’s significant contribution to Ninth Amendment jurisprudence.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs incorporate Barnett’s book by reference as if filed as a matter

of record as supplemental argument in support of their contentions in this case.

Based on the Ninth Amendment, Barnett proposes to reverse the modern

trend by applying a philosophy of judicial review true to its Constitutional origins: a

presumption of liberty, which questions every exercise of power. Barnett concedes

the need for reasonable restrictions on some actions; for example, when such

regulations “are shown to be necessary to prevent the future violation of rights of

others.” When a court is faced with a hard case, he feels that in order for the rule of

law to be maintained, society must accept the outcome even when the ending is not a

“happy” one.

real.” Myers’ Administratrix v., 272 U.S. 52, 151; 47 S. Ct. 21; 71 L. Ed. 160 (1926)(the Myers caseFederalist Papers and Marbury is the theory ofRestoring the Lost Constitution: the Presumption of Liberty,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

3

Such exactly is the case of

result society must accept even if the ending is not a happy one, at least not for most

of Obama’s supporters in the last election. In the present case, the need for

reasonable regulation is that which was established in the Constitution, namely that

the President must be a “natural born citizen” as that term was interpreted and

understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which incorporates

Emmerich de Vattel’s “

sources (Article I, §8,

Plaintiffs also cite and rely upon Vattel’s

above, and would both offer it into evidence under Rule 803(18) of the Federal Rules

of Evidence, and ask the Court to take Judicial Notice of this ancient treatise as well,

on the grounds that the definitions contained therein regarding Natural Born Citizen

are those upon which this court must rely in deciding the present case.

Since the Defendants have cited a line of cases originating with a law

professor’s textbook, however, there is no reason why Plaintiffs should not equally

rely on legal academic texts, and Plaintiffs prefer the writings of Barnett to those of

Tribe, and ask this Court to take judicial notice of Randy E. Barnett’s equally

learned treatise published in 2004, along with his earlier law review article: “The

Ninth Amendment and Constitutional Legitimacy,”

(1988)

that where the Constitution creates a rule as clear as the citizenship requirements of

Article II, the Court should presume and infer that the Ninth Amendment (taken

together with the First Amendment “right to petition for redress of grievances) not

merely affords guarantees a remedy belonging to the people and justiciable, and

Barnett2 v. Obama, a hard case whose properLaw of Nations” as one of its own internally extrinsichttps://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm).Law of Nations, at the website cited64 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 37. The fundamental relevance of Barnett’s treatise on the Ninth Amendment is

2

Plaintiff Captain Pamela Barnett is no known relation to Professor Randy E. Barnett.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

4

redressable in the courts. Defendants completely fail to address the First

Amendment aspect of Plaintiffs’ rights to enforce the constitution, to enforce every

clause and provision, including Article II, §1, Clause 5 re: “natural born” citizenship.

Even more significant than Barnett’s work, however, is the vitality of the Ninth

Amendment as a key factor in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008

Columbia v. Heller

Amendment was indeed used in that case as an analogy for rule of construction and

interpretation, the Court upheld the independence of the First, Fourth, and Ninth

Amendments as sources of independent, individual power by writing: “

these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not

“collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through

participation in some corporate body

District of, 128 S.Ct. 2783; 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). While the NinthAll three of.” 128 S.Ct. at 2790, 171 L.Ed.2d at 650.

D.C. v. Heller

substantive rights protected by the Constitution, even though the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments are not precisely cited as central rules of decision in that

case. When the Defendants, however, state at p. 1, ll. 22-24, and p. 2, ll. 2-7, that

“…the Ninth Amendment does not independently create a constitutional right for

purposes of stating a claim” and “the Ninth Amendment is ‘not a source of rights as

such’”, the Defendants are ignoring the key role and importance of the Ninth

Amendment in modern cases recognizing substantive due process rights starting with

involves “substantive due process”, because it addresses

Griswold v. Connecticut

wherein (according to a search on Lexis) the Ninth Amendment is cited 55 times (see

especially the Ninth-Amendment centered concurrence of Justices Goldberg, Harlan,

Brennan, and Earl Warren) at 381 U.S. 486, 85 S.Ct. 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516).

As is well known,

very long line of cases, including most notably

, 381 U.S. 479; 85 S.Ct. 1678; 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965),Griswold v. Connecticut stands as the starting point of aStanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645; 92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

5

S.Ct. 1208; 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972),

L.Ed.2d 147 (1973);

2791; 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992);

147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000); and

156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).

In each of these cases (with the sole exception of

Amendment played a significant if not decisive role in conjunction with the Fifth and

Fourteenth to establish a “broad statement[] of the substantive reach of liberty”

(

abortion, sex generally, and family structure in particular regarding which there is no

express language in the Constitution whatsoever. How much stronger is the

inference that there is an actionable “liberty interest” under the First, Fifth, and

Ninth Amendments in the enforcement of the expressly protective clauses of the

Constitution e.g. the “natural born citizenship” requirements of Article II, Section 1?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; 93 S.Ct. 705; 35Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833; 112 S.Ct.Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054;Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558; 123 S.Ct. 2472;Lawrence), the NinthLawrence, 539 U.S. at 564, 123 S.Ct. at 2476) into subjects such as contraception,

Redressability & Political Questions: Reply page 3, lines 1-3

Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of

“redressability” and then they effectively combine this contention with the Political

Question Doctrine at page 6 reasoning that, “questions of impeachment or removal

from office of a President are political questions because they are textually committed

by the Constitution to branches of government other then the judiciary.”

Myers’ Administratrix

long line of cases, most notably

92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986) and

L.Ed.2d 569 (1988). The relevance of these cases, concerning the removal of

executive branch officials (all cases relating to officers lower than Cabinet level

positions, and none having to do with the express terms of Constitutional eligibility of

, cited above, is another “root” case giving rise to aBowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 106 S.Ct. 3181,Morrison v. Olsen, 487 U.S. 654, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

6

any particular officer), is—even assuming Defendants were correct that Congress had

ever intended to deprive the judiciary of power to adjudicate the Constitutional

eligibility of any elected officer—-whether Congress actually possesses the power to

limit the removal of any executive branch official to itself by and through the

impeachment process. The answer would seem to be a resounding “NO.”

Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an

officer charged with the execution of the laws except by

impeachment. To permit the execution of the laws to be

vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in

practical terms, reserve in Congress control over the

execution of the laws.

Bowsher v. Synar

596 (1986), and

L.Ed.2d 569, 602 (1988).

The Supreme Court in

case, of evaluating the role of the judiciary in the separation of powers doctrine:

While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also

contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a

workable government. It enjoins upon its

interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.

Tube Co. v. Sawyer

487 U.S. at 694, 108 S.Ct. at 2620-2621, 101 L.Ed.2d at 607.

The

because

usurpation of authority without recent historical parallel, until approximately

January 21, 2009.

In

to enjoin unconstitutional usurpation of power (and seizure of property) by the

American President Harry S. Truman.

unconstitutional acts on the part of the President can be enjoined by a District Court.

, 478 U.S. 714, 726, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 3187-88, 92 L.Ed.2d 583,Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 685-6; 108 S.Ct. 2597; 101Morrison took the extra step, relevant to the presentbranches separateness butYoungstown Sheet &, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (concurring opinion).Morrison Court’s citation to Youngstown is extremely significant,Youngstown was a case focusing on Presidential abuse of power andYoungstown, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of a District CourtYoungstown stands for the proposition that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

7

So the Plaintiffs’ injuries are judicially redressable: under

can, at the very least, enjoin President Barack Hussein Obama from acting in the

absence of constitutional authority to do so. Under

Court can review the President’s qualifications for office and remove him if good

cause be shown which would reaffirm the constitutional ethics and standards

underlying the legitimacy of the Presidency. Those cases, obviously, concerned the

removal of inferior officers, but the logic of separation of powers dictates that ONLY

the Article III judiciary, as the final refuge repository of the sovereignty of the people

can possibly supervise and review the constitutional qualifications and legitimacy of

the President on behalf of the people.

The President cannot be held to be an impartial or dispassionate judge of his

own qualifications. In fact, the January 21, 2009, executive order sealing all of

President’s archival and personal records, previously submitted in this case, was, like

the order seizing steel mills in

deriving either from the Constitution nor any Congressional statute:

Youngstown the CourtBowsher and Morrison, theYoungstown, an order unsupported by any authority

The President’s order

policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress — it

directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner

prescribed by the President.

3 does not direct that a congressional

343 U.S. at 588, 72 S.Ct. at 867, 96 L.Ed. at 1168 (1952).

Like the unconstitutional usurpation and exercise of power in

Barack Hussein Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency must be condemned for its

arrogant disregard of the Constitution.

Again using the insertion of paraphrasis from this critical case in brackets:

Youngstown,

3

Executive Order 13489—Presidential

by Executive Branch Personnel Memorandum of January 21, 2009”.

Published in the Federal Register: January 26, 2009; Part VIII; The President;; Records; Executive Order 13490—Ethics Commitments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

8

It cannot be contended that the President would have had power to

issue this [or any] order [or even to assume power at all] had [the

Constitution] explicitly negated such authority in formal [language].

[And yet in fact, the Constitution] has expressed its will to withhold this

power from the President [because] it [says] so in so many words. The

authoritatively expressed purpose of [the Constitution] to disallow such

… [a] President [to accede to power]. . . . could not be more decisive . .

Id. at 343 U.S. 602, 72 S.Ct. 893, 96 L.Ed. 1175.

Each and every Plaintiff in this lawsuit is at the very least a taxpayer and a

citizen. The expenditure of funds by a President who is not constitutionally qualified

is a new requirement imposed on the people of the United States. It is a clear and

material change in the terms in the social contract (as well as the actual employment

contract of all oath-taking officers and enlisted men and legislators who have sworn

to uphold that Constitution) that a President can come into office, seal his records,

and disclose nothing about his past or origins once they are challenged.

Accordingly, in response to the Defendants Reply on page 4, ll. 9-17, Plaintiffs

can and do allege that the Defendants have imposed upon the Plaintiffs a new,

specific, and unconstitutional action that they are required to take in violation of

their First Amendment right to petition for proof of constitutional eligibility and their

Ninth Amendment reservation of sovereignty, and of the power to uphold the

Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed by their delegate and

trustee, the President of the United States. The point of allowing

Flast v. Cohen

taxpayer standing is precisely to correct the failures of the political system to abide by

the plain letter and strictures of the Constitution. The challenge of what constitutes

a “political question” immune from judicial review remains, in Plaintiffs’ eyes, quite

simple: non-justiciable political questions are those where a policy choice and

decision has been made within the Constitutional framework: e.g., to appropriate

and allocate funds for additional nuclear submarines or a new national park. There is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

9

no political question involved in whether or not to enforce the First Amendment

separation of Church and State, it is strictly a matter of constitutional construction

and application. There is no political question involved in whether or not to enforce

the natural born citizenship requirements of Article II.

Exhibit A shows a letter from Senator Sessions from Alabama states that the

senator cannot get involved in the matter of eligibility due to the fact that the legal

actions were pending and ethics requirements prevent him from getting involved in

legal matters. Now the government is stating that the judiciary cannot address this

issue because it is a political issue and it needs to be resolved by the senators and

congressmen, the same senators and congressmen that didn’t want to get involved in

the first place because it is up to the judiciary. Absurdity of this argument is clear. As

Senator Sessions states his letter- legal matters need to be resolved by the judiciary.

Similarly Exhibit B shows

Eric Holder on March 1. Mr. Holder never responded in the period of seven months.

quo warranto request filed with the attorney general

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: FORM, FUNCTION, & FUTILITY

In essence, there is a question of material fact regarding the sufficiency of

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding compliance with the pre-requisites for suit under

FOIA. Captain Pamela Barnett has fulfilled the requirements in form and function.

FOIA is basically a form of inquiry designed to make private party investigations into

the Federal government easier and more accessible. More important, however, in

light of the executive orders entered on January 21, 2009, all proper FOIA requests,

like all other requests were and are FUTILE so long as the President’s executive

orders are allowed to stand (see footnote above).

But in practical effect and function, the undersigned counsel’s numerous

requests for information, including her letter to U.S.A.G. Eric Holder and the

Secretary of State of Kentucky (Exhibit C) constituted massive pre-filing diligence on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

10

the part of counsel. Plaintiffs ask the real Congressional purpose in enacting FOIA,

to open the doors or narrow the path to information? Plaintiffs contend that they are

entitled to use their year of investigations as the practical formal substitute and

functional equivalent of a formal FOIA requests originating in Orange County, and

that the failure to fill out specific forms should not defeat the right to know.

THE CONSPIRACY TO TAKE THE PRESIDENCY BY FRAUD in 2008

Exhibit D is a new report submitted by Susan Daniels, a private investiga-tor

out of Columbus, Ohio, who bolsters the previous investigation of Neal Sankey into

the social security number history of Barack Hussein Obama. The falsification of his

Social Security number does not in and of itself render Obama unqualified to be

President, but it does raise questions concerning his identity. With regard to Hillary

Clinton, Michelle Obama and Joseph Biden, the Plaintiffs submit that they still need

to amend their Complaint again adequately to state a claim under 18 U.S.C.

§1964(c) for racketeering in the 2008 election based, only in part, on multiple

instances of predicate act fraud by breach of the intangible right to honest services.

Exhibit D makes this more critical.

RHODES v. MACDONALD: MORE BUCK PASSING?

Even though Judge Land dismissed this case, he did so based on a theory of

abstention from involvement in internal military matters. Abstention clearly implies

that the existence of jurisdiction. Defendants overstate the significance of Judge

Land’s highly prejudicial comments. Plaintiffs, naturally disagree that Judge Land

lacked authority to construe the significance of the commissioned officer’s oath to

uphold the Constitution, and Plaintiffs’ disagree that Judge Land fairly evaluated the

international military perils created by an illegitimate commander-in-chief who

appears to have obtained his office by fraud. Judge Land, like the Defendants, quite

misses the point that all members of the U.S. military are subject to new, specific,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

11

and unconstitutional commands because obedience to any command, at the present

time, requires violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution. The government

under Obama is constitutionally illegitimate, and it is that crisis of legitimacy that

“create[s] a virtual engine of destruction of our Constitutional System”, not Plaintiffs’

suit to redress it.

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied in all respects and leave

to amend granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Thursday, October 1, 2009

/s/ ORLY TAITZ

By:________________________________

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

12

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,

Thursday, October 1, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the

Plaintiffs’ above‐and‐foregoing Plaintiffs’Sur‐Reply 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:

THOMAS P. O’RIEN

LEON W. WEIDMAN

ROGER E. WEST

President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)

DAVID A. DeJUTE

roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel forDavid.Dejute@usdoj.gov

GARY KREEP

usjf@usjf.net

FACSIMILE (213) 894‐7819

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Thursday the 1

/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

st day of October, 2009.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

13

Exhibit A:

December 2008

Letter From

Senator Sessions of

Alabama regarding

The need for judicial

resolution

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ (Document 56)

Motion to Dismiss, and Request for

Judicial Notice of certain Learned Treatises

DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688

14