CITES VIOLATION OF LOCAL COURT RULES
by John Charlton
(Nov. 14, 2009) — Yesterday, acting Attorney General George S. Cardona, who with assistant Attorney Generals Roger E. West and David A. DeJute, represents the Defendants in Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., filed an Opposition brief to the Motion for Reconsideration submitted by Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., on Nov. 9th.
Dr. Taitz in her Motion had listed numerous errors of fact and law in Judge David O. Carter’s decision, which dismissed the First Amended Complaint in the case.
The case of Barnett vs. Obama deals with the massive election fraud committed by Obama and the Democratic Party in the State of California, when Obama applied and was admitted to the presidential ballot, even though he is not eligible for the office, in that his father was a British subject at the time of Obama, Jr’s birth.
Attorney General Cardona’s Opposition brief reads as follows:
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby set forth their opposition to Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration of Order to Dismiss Under Rule 59E and Rule 60.”
Rule 7-18 of the Local Rules of the Central District of California provides as follows:
“Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.”
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration completely violates, both procedurally and substantively, the above-quoted Local Rule, and, accordingly, should be summarily denied. Additionally, the Motion should be denied because it violates Local Rule 6-1, which requires that a Notice of Motion be filed, setting the matter for hearing no earlier than 21 days after filing. No such Notice of Motion has been served upon undersigned counsel, and no such hearing date has been noticed.
Finally, the Motion should be denied because it violates Local Rule 7-3, which requires that a conference of counsel take place prior to the filing of the Motion. No such conference took place in this case.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion should be denied.
jtx:–
Judge Carter can completely save face — and do the right thing — by simply allowing Orly to file her second amended complaint in the still redressable Keyes case for tort fraud damages against pre-President Candidate Obama!
That one correct move — which is not inconsistent with Judge Carter’s Order granting the Motion to Dismiss for the UNredressable claims, per the Order — and which any counter appeal by Team Obama can go nowhere (no delay) — may have been in Judge Carter’s plans all along.
We’ll soon find out!
Do you not suppose that Carter will protect his own inept reasoning in the MTD order and deny this action???
Doing otherwise would admit publicly that he was in error.
Sounds like a,”squeker”. Hopefully, Orly’s Motion will give her presidence.
Does every federal District Court in the country have such Local Rules? Seems loco, since by definition “federal” implies a national unity.
Anyway, it looks to me like Orly satisfied the grounds as to Local Rule 7-18 since she did show “a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision.” As to Local Rule 7-3, the remedy would seem to be to have the conference of counsel and re-file the Motion for Reconsideration, if necessary.
The question still remains, do we have a legitimate government or not? I say NOT.
OK, Motion for Reconsideration denial should have no bearing on Orly’s leave to file second amended complaint on Keyes’ suit for tort fraud, a redressable claim which, in any case, was not dismissed by the terms of the order granting dismissal; and which if there’s any doubt, should be the subject of clarification request.
I made a $20 donation to Orly Tatz at her website through my paypal account. It did not go through my bank. This same thing happened when I sent $10.00 to Joe Wilson for the YOU LIE comment. When you make a donation, check your bank to see if paypal put it through. I know she had trouble with them before. Send her your receipt as I am doing.
—————–
Mr. Charlton replies:I think, Mrs. Devine,that it is best not to discuss details too much; but as far as I understand, if you had used a debit card from your bank, it takes several days to show up on the bill; if you had an outstanding paypal balance the funds do not come from your bank, but from your paypal account.