BREAKING: Orly Taitz – Military – Motion Fights The B. Hussein O. Fraud

September 26, 2009

Dr.

Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy

Rancho Santa

Margarita

CA

92688

California State Bar No.: 223433

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION

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 sur-reply 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

By:______________________________________________

Dr.

Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law

(California Bar 223433)

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy

Rancho Santa

Margarita

CA

92688

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, 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:

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 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

charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com

Tel: (512) 923-1889

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply