Taitz Requests Judicial Notice on Individuals' Rights Fraud

ARGUES FROM FEDERAL STATUTE  IN RICO CASES

by John Charlton

(Oct. 11, 2009) — Attorney Orly Taitz, esq. has filed a Request for Judicial Notice in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Barack Hussein Obama et al., which is being heard by Judge David O. Carter, in the Federal District Court at Santa Ana, California. Judge Carter was featured by the Post & Email yesterday in a Spotlight Report.

The filing requests the Court’s recognition of the arguments concerning standing in cases wherein racketeering & fraud is involved. Dr. Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, argues thus:

The Plaintiffs have repeatedly alleged that the election of 2008 was procured by fraud. Acquisition of high public office by and through implementation of a scheme to defraud regarding material facts regarding a candidate’s qualifications and identity is a species of public sector fraud. Such a scheme to defraud is actionable by private parties under 18 U.S.C. §1346, in that each instance of the use of interstate wires or mail delivery facilities counts as an individual predicate act under Civil R.I.C.O., 18 U.S.C. §§1961, 1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c).

She then requests Judge Carter to take note of the application of §1346 to the case Barnett vs. Obama:

Plaintiffs request the Court to take note that the United States Congress’ express purpose in enacting 18 U.S.C. §1346 was to ensure that corruption by both (even paired) public and private sector defendants’ (such as Defendants Barack and Michelle Obama were from the Illinois Senatorial Election 2004-up-through January 20, 2009) individualized damages were not required to obtain convictions under 18 U.S.C. §1346. It logically follows that Civil RICO actions relating to public and private sector corruption which would utilize predicate acts of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §1346 could likewise be brought without proof of individualized damages or “standing” in the civil sense. Plaintiffs accordingly submit that the principles of prosecutions of public corruption based on 18 U.S.C. §1346 be applied to evaluate the standing of the Plaintiffs in the present above-entitled-and-numbered case Barnett v. Obama.

She concludes by making this request to the Court:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court take Judicial Notice of the doctrine of the people’s intangible right to honest services based on 18 U.S.C. §1346, and consider the significance for the standing of the people to bring suit under Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)), that the criminal predicate acts for RICO which may be substantiated under this title do not require specific personalized injury to business or property interests. Accordingly, the people of the United States may sue for Civil RICO for the fraudulent denial of their intangible right to honest services without showing individualized specific injury, and this case should be allowed to go forward, albeit with Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint allowed to be filed, and considered as a fundamental (complementary) element of citizen standing.

The purpose of this filing is to bolster the claim of the Plaintiffs to standing, which is the issue presently under the Court’s consideration, as Judge Carter decides on the Motion to Dismiss, presented by acting Attorney General George S.  Cardona, lead counsel for the Defense.

Carter’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss is expected shortly.  The Post & Email had reported that the Minute Order fixing the dates for the trial, issued last week, indicated that Carter would in part deny the Motion and recognize the standing of at least some plaintiffs in the case.  This is consistent with Judge Carter’s many statements in court, that the case will go forward.  That report spoke of the Judge’s “decision” in the sense of his state of mind; his formal court order publishing his decision has yet to be issued.