Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Below is the motion just filed by Obama's Stooges seeking to dismiss attorney Taitz's '60B Motion for Reconsideration' in the Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto. Below Obama's motion is atty Taitz's motion for reconsideration/exhibits. Again Mr. Usurper, would it not be easier to release the records these lawsuits seek instead of fighting them with lawyers paid with our tax dollars!? Not long ago you stated this; "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." ...Again, I agree 100%!!!

DEFENDANT’S(Obama) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant, Barack H. Obama, respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (R.34). Plaintiff claims in this case that President Obama committed fraud regarding his qualification for office as a “natural born citizen.” This Court recently dismissed the action for lack of constitutional standing (R.22 & R.23) and denied Plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration (R.25 & R.33). Plaintiff moves under Rule 60(b) but she again presents no information or arguments that come close to meeting the standard for reconsideration. Instead, she rehashes her same arguments and cloaks them as addressing “mistakes of fact” in this Court’s prior decisions. Viewed under any standard, her motion does nothing to make her claims appear any stronger than previously presented.

Legal Standard for Reconsideration

The Federal Rules also allow a party to seek relief from judgment when a party can demonstrate “fraud, mistake, extraordinary circumstances, or other enumerated situations.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See also Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“the legal error warranting reversal of a denial of reconsideration under Rule 60(b) review must be clear.”); Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 583 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2008). “[I]n most cases, the bar stands even higher for a party to prevail on a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment” than for relief from judgment under Rule 59(b). See Uberoi v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2002).

Argument

The repetition in her arguments is clear from a simple comparison of what Plaintiff says now to what she argued before in opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss (R.21) and in support of her amended Rule 59(b) motion for reconsideration (R.25):

1. “Error of law and fact” in the Court’s reading of the quo warranto statute.
(R.34 at 2.) Plaintiff made this same argument in her Rule 59(b) motion, where she also alleged that Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot would have standing to bring a quo warranto action. (R.25 at 5.) Her new motion adds only that:

Newly discovered transcripts from the Spring session of the Assembly of Kenya, specifically a speech by Minister of Lands James Orengo, stating that Obama was born in Kenya, suggest that Obama obtained his Certification of Live Birth by fraud, therefore he never obtained valid, legal US citizenship, therefore Ambassador Keyes has standing[.]

(R.34 at 3.) This unsupported allegation does nothing to advance her argument, even if it were taken as true. The Court rejected this argument already (R.33 at 3) and there is nothing here to suggest that Plaintiff can meet the higher standard for reconsideration on Rule 60(b), having failed in her Rule 59(b) motion.

2. Plaintiff claims the Court “misunderstood” her Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request, based on her argument that President Obama cannot be 120 years old according to the Social Security number she ascribes to him. (R.34 at 3-4.) This too tracks the same argument she made earlier (R.30 at 3) and does nothing to undermine the Court’s rejection of her FOIA claims on the basis of her failure to exhaust administrative remedies (R.33 at 3).

3. Plaintiff presents a letter from the Department of Justice from August 2010, regarding her $20,000 fine as a sanction for frivolous filings in a separate suit challenging the President’s qualifications for office, and argues that this provides new evidence in support of her claims. (R.34 at 7, 14-15, 16.) This does nothing to demonstrate her standing to bring this action because it too lacks any articulated or plausible connection to the actions of Defendant. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Nor is it new. (R.21 at 4.)

4. Plaintiff claims to have new evidence in the form of an “additional last name” allegedly used by President Obama. (R.34 at 11.) This fails to address her standing problems and so does nothing to suggest the need to revive her case.

5. Plaintiff renews her arguments based on the health care legislation enacted earlier this year by Congress (R.34 at 16-19), and again adds nothing substantial or reasonably unavailable from her earlier filings (R.25 at 6). The Court rejected this before (R.23 at 9-10) and should reject it again.

6. Plaintiff points to this Court’s decision in Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, No. 05-1548 (D.D.C. July 30, 2010), as support for her argument that the Court can assert jurisdiction in this case. The issues in that decision involved a default judgment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, id. at 4, and simply have nothing to do with the defects of Plaintiff’s claims here. The remainder of Plaintiff’s arguments are meritless on their face.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

September 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

RONALD C. MACHEN JR., D.C. Bar #447889
United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia AKA
(Obama Supporter/Donor/Appointee)

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122
Chief, Civil Division

by: /s/
ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar # 470655
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-7204, alan.burch@usdoj.gov

Previous reports on attorney Orly Taitz can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Taitz v Obama - Quo-Warranto - Defendant's(Obama) Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsiderati...

Taitz v Obama - 60 B Motion for Reconsideration - U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia - 8-22-10

Taitz v Obama - Exhibits for 60 B Motion for Reconsideration - U.S. District Court for the District of Colu...



6 comments:

  1. BORN A BRIT NOT LEGIT!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Birther in chief' invited to dinner by Harry Reid. 'I have no fear of anything. I'll ask him about eligibility on camera'

    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responsible for putting a charge in races where a seat in the U.S. Senate is at stake for the party, has invited Orly Taitz, the California lawyer responsible for a long list of legal and other challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility, to one of its events that will feature the president.

    The invitation prompted Taitz to post a copy on her website under the headline "You want what Mr. Reid????????????"

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=203485

    ReplyDelete
  3. Machen has long admired Obama -- since his days at Harvard Law School, where Obama already was a "legend," Machen said. In 2003, Machen was one of the first people to donate to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign, long before he emerged on the national political stage.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041803651.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. if obama does not end up behind bars for life over this its our fault. we must demand our congressmen and senators make mr kenya produce his long form birth certificate. we the people have a right to know where he was born and everything about him. if obama dont like that its just too damn bad. put up or get out mr liar n theif.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When a resident in America must rely on a forged Social Security Card - identified by a number assigned in 1890 to a resident of Connecticut - this is sufficient proof to me that he does not have a long form, or for that matter, any birth certificate indicating he was born in the U.S. Any man who illegally enters this country under a visa indicating he was a "foreigner" DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE DEFENDED BY THE SANE CONSTITUTION AGAINST WHICH HE HAD COMMITTED TREASON MANY TIMES. Period. Director Mueller of the FBI should also be vetted along side Obama for the FBI's failure to thoroughly investigate any man with a Muslim name applying for nomination under the DNC to run for president. Hey guys, Obama has also committed quite a few felonies, and other treachery against the constitution. Let's not open the can of beans wherein he was linked to two murders, one before he campaigned for president, and one in 2008, neither of which the FBI dared investigate. Still want him for our president with his "clean hands and pure heart"? There may a time to forgive him for his treachery. That would be after George Soros dismisses him as a puppet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I must take issue with some of the concepts put forward in the continuing saga of Mr. Obama's citizenship.
    While I personally believe he (Mr. Obama)is NOT a "natural born citizen" as clamed, It's important that we stay with the facts when discussing this subject.

    Case in point:
    The abberant social security number.

    From all I've been able to gather, the S.S.# in question is of the group of numbers issued only to residents of Conneticut.
    I have not heard, seen, read or been told of anyone other than residents of that state being issued S.S. numbers begining with that particlar sequence and it would be difficult to imagine a circumstance where that would happen.
    Nor have I learned of a time when he became a legal resident of that state.
    That being said; the S.S. number in question was originally issued to a person who was BORN IN 1890.
    As Social Security was not a law back then, or even contimplated at that time, it is most likly that it was issued some time after it became law in 1935 as part of F.D.R.s "New Deal".
    Where and how it came to be Mr. Obama's no one is telling (just one of the many things this man has obfuscated, some of it with our tax money).
    Does this deserve an explanation? ABSOLUTLY!!
    Will we see one soon?
    That's an unknown factor. Mr. Obama himself is the only one who knows the truth.
    Unfortunatly, "HE AIN'T TALKIN"!!!
    I am open to any ideas (short of violence) to bring honest answers to these vital questions but, let's stay with the facts.

    S.Crawford

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.