If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by John Charlton

(Nov. 9, 2009) — This afternoon Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. filed a Motion for Reconsideration in Barnett vs. Obama, the case in Federal Court, Santa Ana, California, which garnered national attention 2 weeks ago, for Judge David O. Carter’s outrageous ruling denying standing to military personnel and taxpayers, and which denied complete redressability to political candidates who were defrauded of their chance to run for office in an election in which the ballot was comprimised by the addition of a popular but ineligible candidate.  The most famous plaintiff in this case is former Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, who was a candidate for president in the 2008 Elections.

In addition Judge Carter’s ruling included a personal attack on the lead counsel of the Plaintiffs, the incendiary reaction of which was criticized by even third parties for its lack of impartiality.

Dr. Taitz’s Motion for Reconsideration, made in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure (59-e and 60), attacks Judge Carter’s ruling point by point, and asks him to strike the errors of fact and law contained in it.

The Motion begins by citing the now public facts of the case of Siddhart Velamoor’s appointment by Judge Carter as his law clerk on October 1, 2009, just 4 days before the hearing in which he considered the Motion to Dismiss the case presented by Obama’s lawyers.

Dr. Taitz writes:

1. A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case, Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins Coie was one of the firms representing the defendants in a prior legal action filed by the plaintiffs in this very case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn’t request any vital records and never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and all the other secretaries of states took his Declaration of a Candidate on it’s face value. As it is a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most of the opinions for the judges, the order to dismiss this case was de facto written or largely influenced by an attorney who until recently worked for a firm representing the defendant in this case, and who  currently is working as a clerk for the presiding judge, as such most of the order is tainted by bias. This is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs.

She then asks that the personal attack made on her in the Ruling be struck, on account of its prejudicial bias.

Dr. Taitz then asks for a series of items to be struck from the ruling:

2. The plaintiffs request the court to strike from the order unsupported and prejudicial verbiage. Please see in the attachment Declaration of the undersigned attorney.

3. The court has stated in the pleadings that the undersigned attorney has encouraged her supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence his decision in the October 5 hearing. This is not true. The plaintiffs request this stricken from the final order.

4. During October 5 hearing your honor has stated that the undersigned attorney encouraged the supporters to attempt to influence the court’s decision. This never happened. When the undersigned attorney requested to respond, the court stated: “no, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibility”. The undersigned attorney has done nothing of a kind and believes that this information might’ve come from some ex parte communications with the presiding judge coming from parties connected to the defense, which is prejudicial, inflammatory and defamatory. The undersigned requests it stricken from the order.

Then Taitz addresses the affidavits mentioned by Carter in his ruling, which he claimed besmirched her character:

5. The court has included in the order mention of yet another ex-parte communication with the judge, where two parties claimed that the undersigned counsel has asked them to perjure themselves. Please see the declaration, this was a slanderous, defamatory, prejudicial allegation, and the undersigned had no opportunity to respond.

6. The undersigned believes that the letters came from Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith.

7. Larry Sinclair was asked to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In the affidavit submitted to the Chicago police and in his book recently published, Mr. Sinclair has stated that Mr. Donald Young has contacted him repeatedly and stated that he had a homosexual relationship with Mr. Barack Obama and that Mr. Young was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds December 23, 2007  at the onset of 2008 Democratic primary elections. Any allegations of the undersigned attorney asking the witness to perjure himself are not only completely defamatory and prejudicial, but are void of any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair’s affidavit regarding Mr. Young’s homicide can be found filed with the Chicago PD and in his book. A copy of the Affidavit of Larry Sinclair and Coroners Certificate of Death of Donald Young is attached as an Exhibit.

8. Lucas Smith was asked to authenticate Mr. Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya, which he previously tried to sell on e-bay and which he authenticated under penalty of perjury both on video camera and in writing. As such any allegations of suborning perjury are totally defamatory and void of any sense or reason, since Mr. Smith made this information public long before ever meeting the undersigned counsel. Therefore any and all allegations of misconduct by the undersigned are totally without merit, prejudicial and defamatory and need to be stricken from the order.

Then Dr. Taitz addresses the discrepancy of the Court’s acceptance of unverified affidavits, compared to his refusal to accept expert testimony in regard to multiple Social Security Numbers assosciated with Obama’s campaigning for office:

9. The undersigned is the only attorney, who has the bravery of character to pursue  not only the issue of Mr. Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency, but also information provided by two licensed investigators, showing that according to reputable databases Mr. Obama has used 39 different social security numbers including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals. This information is an indication of multiple felonies committed by the sitting president, and the undersigned believes that she was targeted and defamatory statements were used in order to keep her silent, to endanger her license and prevent her from proceeding on the above issues. The undersigned is deeply concerned about the fact that the court chose to include in the order slanderous ex-parte communications, while completely ignoring the above evidence against the defendant, which show a tremendous likelihood of success on a RICO claim.

On which basis she argues that it was unreasonable for the Ruling to fault her for not filing a RICO complaint, while at the same time denying discovery, which is essential to uncovering the evidence necessary to file such an action:

10.The court has commented on the plaintiffs’ inability to file a full pledged RICO complaint, calling it inexcusable. The court apparently forgot the fact that the plaintiffs have asked for discovery in order to obtain sufficient information for complete RICO complaint. The court has denied all requests for discovery, therefore making it impossible for the plaintiffs to submit fully pleaded RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs request discovery in order to submit a properly plead RICO complaint or in the alternative a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on RICO cause of action.

Taitz, then point out the error of citing a precedent, as a reason for denying jurisdiction, when in fact that precedent is a basis for claiming such:

11.The court relies on Ashwander vs. Tenn Valley, as the reason to assert that it has no jurisdiction. This is a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. As Ashwander states “If a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction of general law, the Court will decide only the latter”. The fact of the matter is that there is no law or statute,that provides definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause. The defense has argued a definition completely different from the definition submitted by the plaintiffs, therefore in the absence of any law or statute providing such definition Aswander actually dictates that the issue needs to be decided based on the Constitution. Central district court of California clearly has a right to interpret the Constitution, so based on the courts own argument the case has to be adjudicated. “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it is brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution” Supreme Court justice John Marshall in Cohen v Virginia 19 US 264 (1821).

She then asks Judge Carter, a former Marine, to strike his words which insulted the military plaintiffs, on the grounds of his own political beliefs:

12.The undersigned counsel requests the court to strike out of the order unsupported, prejudicial, demeaning and defamatory language p8, line 22-24 insinuating that the military plaintiffs in this action are cowards and writing: “The court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve”. The undersigned has submitted to this court a letter from Captain Crawford, Legal Counsel to Admiral Malin, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, which clearly stated that the commander in Chief is considered a civilian and there is nothing military can do regarding his eligibility. Based on this response from the military the plaintiffs have  brought this matter to the Federal court to ascertain legitimacy and allegiance of the Commander in Chief, who is not a part of the military. The order completely misstated the complaint and standing justification. Recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood has given this question paramount importance. This order has advocated blind obedience by the members of the military.

Dr. Orly Tatiz then goes to the heart of the error in the Ruling, the fact that it was based on a misstatement of what the Plaintiffs sought:

13.The court has misstated the main argument of the case. The court states that the court has no jurisdiction to remove duly elected president. That is a complete misinterpretation of the plaintiffs’ argument, probably done by the biased clerk. In reality the whole argument and plea, is for the court to decide, whether the person residing in the White House is duly elected. If he got there by virtue of massive fraud, he had no right to be there and people who voted for him had no right to vote for him. The plaintiffs asked for the judicial determination, for the declaratory relief. If the court finds that fraud was committed, then not only Mr. Obama should be criminally prosecuted, but he will also be liable to about 20 percent of the population of this country who voted for him and particularly to the ones that contributed to his campaign. Just as when one forges a deed to a house, the rightful owner is justified in going to court for as long as it takes to achieve justice and remove the forger and the thief from his house. No judge will be justified in intimidating or sanctioning the owner of the house for going to court to seek resolution on the merits.  Similarly, “we the people” are the rightful owners of the White House and we have the right to go to the authorities and the courts to seek the resolution on the merits for as long as it takes and to remove one who got there by virtue of fraud. It is ludicrous to believe that any judge has any justification to attack us, to sanction us for what is clearly our constitutional right. Saying that no citizen in the country has standing and no court has standing is error of law. This court has erred in not taking into account the October 5th oral argument by the undersigned attorney in  that California Choice of law rules require District of Columbia Law be applied to DC defendants. Constitution is a contract between “we the people” and the government. Natural Born citizen clause is an integral part of this contract. California Supreme court adopted the rule laid out in §187 of the restatement of the Conflict of Laws.. Under §188, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction at issue is applied. California has adopted the rule of §188. Edwards v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 848 F. Supp. 1460 (ND Cal. 1994); Stonewall Surplus lines Ins. Co v Johnson Controls. Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 637, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 713(1993). This  is a case with diversity of parties and the court can make a determination of a choice of law. As such Your Honor can and has to choose DC law, which includes Quo Warranto provision. The interest of judicial economy and National Defense as well as the interest of National security particularly in light of latest slaughter of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan dictate for Your Honor to make a determination of election  of DC law and proceeding in Quo Waranto under DC statute 16-3503.

She then faults the ruling for failure to take Judicial Notice of the material facts of a RICO action contained in the Plaintiff’s complaint, which notice was filed and accepted by the Court, just days before Carter ruled:

14.The court erred in not taking Judicial notice of 18 USC §1346; Intangible Rights Fraud-as individual damages are not required in Public Sector Mail and Wire Political corruption. Mr. Obama’s use of multiple social security numbers, including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals, his obfuscation of all the vital records and use of computer images of records that cannot be considered genuine according to the experts constitute individual predicate acts under Civil R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C.§§1961,1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c)., which gives standing to every member of the public at large. Denial of standing was an error of law.

One of the thorny questions of proceedure, which was the basis of a hearing in July, in this case, was the consistent refusal to accept service (that is, official notice) by Obama and his representatives.  On this basis, Dr. Taitz had requested a default judgment, which would have obviated further proceedural objections; because when one is sued in court, if one fails to respond, it is tacit admission of culpability.  Dr. Taitz lays out the facts of this issue, thus:

15.The court has made an erroneous and prejudicial statement regarding the service of process by the plaintiffs. It was a clear error of fact and of law. Mr. Obama has been served four times and evaded service of process.   As the original action was filed by the undersigned counsel on the Inauguration Day (prior to swearing, as Mr. Obama took a proper oath only the next day, on January 21st) by the undersigned counsel against Mr. Obama as an individual for his actions as an individual prior to the election, the undersigned counsel has properly served Mr. Obama as an individual under rule 4e and properly demanded from the court a default judgment and post default discovery. As the court refused to grant the default judgment, the  undersigned properly demanded certification for the interlocutory appeal. As Mr. Obama did not respond to the service of process and couldn’t send a US attorney to represent him, a game was played and US attorney has showed up at July 13 hearing de-facto representing Mr. Obama and arguing on his behalf, while claiming that Mr. Obama was not served and that the US attorney represents United States of America-party of interest. If the issue wouldn’t be so serious for the National Security of the country, the whole charade would’ve been laughable. After all US attorneys were supposed to represent “we the people’ and were supposed to join the plaintiffs, protecting them from massive fraud, not cover up for the defendant. Assistant US attorney, Mr. DeJute demanded that the undersigned counsel serve Mr. Obama through the US attorney’s office, thereby giving Mr. Obama an opportunity to get legal defense at the taxpayers’ expense. The undersigned attorney properly protested, stating that Mr. Obama was properly served as an individual in regards to fraud that he committed as an individual prior to the election and therefore he is not entitled to be represented by the US attorneys at tax payers expense. Your honor did not state that the undersigned was wrong in her assessment, but rather stated in presence of 50 observers, that if the undersigned does not serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, the US attorney will appeal and the case will be sitting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, that if the undersigned counsel agrees to serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, Your Honor promises that the case will be heard on the merits and will not be dismissed on technicality. The undersigned  counsel has protested and raised concerns that, based on prior cases, she is afraid that the US Attorney’s office will try to dismiss on technicality such as standing or jurisdiction, and the case will not be heard on the merits. Again in front of 50 spectators Your Honor assured that this court has jurisdiction and it is important for this case to be decided not on default judgment, but on the merits, that it is important for the military to know if the Commander in Chief is legitimate, it is important for the whole country. If he is legitimate he can stay in the White House, if he is not legitimate, he needs to be removed from there. Under duress and tremendous pressure from Your Honor the undersigned counsel has agreed to serve US attorney with the complaint. Her worst fears materialized, as not only Your  Honor has dismissed the case claiming lack of jurisdiction, but the whole issue was completely misrepresented and the undersigned counsel was denigrated. In the above mater the court erred both in the fact and the law. Mr. Obama should’ve lost this case on the default judgment, post judgment discovery was supposed to be ordered and all the vital records of Mr. Obama could’ve been unsealed back in July –August, and this whole nightmare for the whole Nation should’ve been over 3 months ago. As it stands now, the undersigned counsel, her clients, all of the spectators present in the courtroom and the whole Nation justifiably feel defrauded not only by Mr. Obama, but also by this court.

She then points out that an expert witness dismissed the credibility of the online image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Life Birth, which the Court had relied upon in its ruling:

16.The court erred in not including in the order and not considering an affidavit of Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted by the plaintiffs as part of the attachment in   Dossier #1 and Dossier #6, as Ms Lines, one of the most renown forensic document expert stated in her affidavit that Mr. Obama’s short form Certification of Live Birth cannot be considered genuine without analyzing the original currently sealed in the Health Department in Hawaii. Court also erred in omitting from the final order affidavits of licensed investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels. Court erred in refusing to lift the stay of discovery and granting a motion to dismiss, whereby  the court de facto aided and abetted obstruction of Justice by Mr. Obama.

Then, Attorney Taitz points out that the Ruling misstated a crucial and essential argument of the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, that of the Natural Born Citizenship requirement:

17.The court has misrepresented the allegations in the pleadings. On page 2 line 10 The court states that the complaint pleadings talk about Mr. Obama’s citizenship status and his birth in Kenya. This is a misstatement of law and complete misstatement of the pleadings and Oral argument. The undersigned has submitted for Judicial notice The Law of Nations by Emer De Vattel, specifically arguing that regardless of where Mr. Obama was born, he was never qualified for presidency, and he admitted it, as he admitted that he had British Citizenship at birth based on the citizenship of his father. Later he acquired Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship, therefore he did not  qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, as from birth and until now he had allegiance to other Nations. Natural born citizen is one born in the country to parents (both of them) who are Citizens of the country. This definition was widely used by the framers of the Constitution and was quoted by Chief Justice John Jay and the framer of the 14th amendment John A Bingham.

Then Taitz attacks the error of the Ruling, in which it was claimed that the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction for Quo Warranto actions to the D.C. District courts:

18.The court erred in its statement that the court “is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against president Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District court of Columbia”. This an error of law, since the DC code states that the Quo Warranto may be brought in D.C., it does not state that it is an exclusive jurisdiction, it does not state that another district court cannot try DC residents including the President under DC statutes and there is no notion in the DC court that proceeding in another court under Quo Warranto will somehow rob the D.C. court. The DC code provides “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the district usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.  DC code §§16-3501-16-3503(emphases added). The word may does not mean exclusive jurisdiction, and as such the undersigned counsel was absolutely correct in her assertion that this court has proper jurisdiction to proceed under quo warranto and she prays that Your Honor proceeds immediately and expeditiously with denying the defendants motion to dismiss Quo Warranto cause of action and grants the plaintiffs lift of stay of discovery so they can complete the discovery by the January 26 trial date.

She then points out the error of fact made in the Court’s ruling regarding the FOIA requests made by Plaintiff Barnett and counsel Taitz:

19.The court has made an error of fact and completely misstated the FOIA complaint. Pp26-27. For lack of better words it simply put the FOIA complaint on its head. The undersigned counsel did not state that the FOIA requests need to be send to the defendants, who are individuals, but simply said that in the period of nearly a year she has sent requests for information and request to take proper action to numerous agencies around the country, requesting information about the defendants, and since Mr. Obama has sealed all of his vital records by the executive order on the first day of office, further FOIA requests would be futile. The undersigned counsel has submitted voluminous dossiers 1-6 as attachments and showed the court that she undertook a Herculean effort to obtain proper information from the Department of Justice, State department, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Social Security Administration, Selective Service to name a few. She visited governmental offices all over the country, including CA, Washington DC, KY, TN, WA, TX and others. Simply put there is a wall of silence and lack of response from all of the agencies and therefore a judicial determination and an order of discovery from the trial judge is needed.  As there is an error of fact in the order, the undersigned counsel requests to deny the defendants motion to dismiss, and to lift the stay of discovery, so the plaintiffs can complete the proper discovery and proceed on FOIA cause of action at the scheduled trial date of January 26.

Then, since the Ruling contained the idiotic statement that Obama had released is Birth Certificate, Taitz sets the record straight on that issue:

20.The court erred in its assertion that Mr. Obama has submitted his birth certificate. The whole point is that he submitted a photo shopped computer image of a short version Certification of Life Birth, obtained in 2007, that does not provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures. Mr. Obama has sealed his original birth certificate. State of Hawaii allows one to get a birth certificate based on an uncorroborated statement of one relative only, as such there is a need to unseal the original birth certificate, birthing file and other vital records in order to ascertain his Natural Born Status.

Then Taitz point out that the Ruling contains the error of confounding declatory relief with injunctive relief — an error only a poorly trained law clerk might make:

21.The court has made an error of law in regards to the declaratory relief cause of action. From p.16 to p.25 the court proceeds with a voluminous argument on jurisdiction to remove the president and at the end of the argument makes a huge leap and lumps declaratory relief together with the injunctive relief in one denial. Even if one were to assume arguendo that the court has no power to remove Mr. Obama from office, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Declaratory Relief.  In the declaratory relief the plaintiffs are simply looking for the judicial determination of the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen and factual determination, whether Mr. Obama possess proper vital records and citizenship status to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. This is an issue of first impression, it is ripe and it is of the paramount importance for the country as a whole and particularly for the military that needs to take orders from Mr. Obama as the Commander in Chief. Judicial determination in the form of the declaratory relief is the exclusive domain of the judiciary, it is an Article 3 issue. The Congress has absolutely no power to issue declaratory relief, it has no power to interpret the Constitution, and regardless of the mechanism by which Mr Obama will be later removed from office: Quo Warranto or impeachment, the judicial determination, the declaratory relief has to be done now and it has to be done here. As such the undersigned counsel prays that your Honor deny the defendants motion to dismiss Declaratory Relief cause of action and grant the lift of discovery so that the undersigned counsel can complete her discovery on the Declaratory Relief cause of action by the January 26 date, set for the jury trial.

Finally, Taitz points out to the Court that the case does not involve a political question, but the fraudulent participation in an election by an ineligible candidate:

22.Lastly the court erred in fact of law and fact on the issue of the political doctrine, justiciability and separation of powers. The defense would like to turn this issue into the political doctrine, however it is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of fraud committed prior to taking office. The plaintiffs were not seeking to enjoin any particular decisions of the executive branch, but rather fraud committed by one in order to become the Chief Executive. As the undersigned read to the court a letter written by Senator Sessions of Alabama, the Congress is relying on the courts to resolve the issue of eligibility. The Congress and Senate do not have any power to ascertain whether Mr. Obama is eligible according to the Constitution. They are relying on you, Your Honor, to make a Judicial Determination, provide declaratory relief and they can take action upon your determination. In undying words of Chief Judge John Marshall, not exercising jurisdiction, when it is available, is treason to the Constitution. Therefore there is not only a potential for justiciability, but obligation to take action based on justiciability. In which way can jurisdiction and justiciability be asserted? Clearly these are uncharted waters, however if this Nation would’ve been afraid to enter uncharted water, it would’ve never sent a man to the Moon. If we could send a man to the Moon, we can figure out the issues of the separation of powers, justiciability and jurisdiction. In the humble opinion of the undersigned proper cause of action provided several avenues: (a) declaratory relief on Mr. Obama’s Natural born status; (b) forwarding the findings to Congress for their decision on impeachment; (c) forwarding the finding to a special prosecutor; (d) forwarding the findings of fraud, social security fraud, identity theft-if found, to the Department of Justice and Social Security administration for further handling and ultimate enforcement (e). all of the above.  After many years of test taking in medicine and law, the undersigned believes that all of the above is the most comprehensive, all encompassing answer.

On the basis of which objections, Attorny Taitz closes with the final request:

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons Plaintiffs respectfully request their motion for reconsideration granted and the defendants motion to dismiss denied, or in the alternative the plaintiffs seek the leave of court to file a second amended complaint against Mr. Obama specifically on Declaratory Relief, R.I.C.O, Quo Warranto, 1983, Common Law Fraud and Breach of Contract (Constitution of the United States Of America, Article 2, Section 1 being subject matter of the material breach).

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What about the two Certificates of Nomination from the Democratic Party. One was prepared including an eligibility clause for Hawaii, as required by its Constitution. The second one omitted the eligibility clause, which was sent to the other 49 states. Pelosi signed both on the same day.
    Why two versions of the certificate? Pelosi knows the truth. There are powerful, rich forces in play here.

  2. Judge Carter hired as a law clerk, a lawyer from the very law firm defending Obama! Orly Taitz said the Judge’s demeanor changed drastically after that.
    It would appear the judge was threatened in some way, and forced to hire the law clerk, which is a conflict of interest. Also, the nasty way he wrote his document appears to be intended to appease those who threatened him. By forcing the judge to hire the law clerk, and writing his nasty document, which is completely out of character for him, reveals to thousands of people the evil of the man in the Oval Office. This series of events proves to many people that the case against Obama is true.

  3. I sincerely believe someone from Obama’s camp must have threatened Judge Carter’s life for him to have made such a cowardly and unethical decision. Judge Carters history as a prudent jurist seems to have completely gone down the tubes.

  4. It would appear that Judge Carter has four options:

    1. Summarily Deny in its entirety Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration without comment or decision.

    2. Deny in its entitety Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration with an explanatory decision addressing Orly’s argument(s).

    3. Grant Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration, at least in part, with or without an explanatory decision.

    4. Bypass Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration and simply grant Orly leave to file a second amended complaint against Obama, as requested by Orly in the alternative.

    Mr. Charlton replies: You might add, deny the Motion and sanction her for outing his ruling as error ridden as swiss cheese is hole-ridden.

  5. I think every Marine needs to send this Judge two words, Semper Fi. If he is a respectable man, Veteran and Judge how could he take such a cowardly approach. It’s quite simple. Where is the Birth Certificate, Mr. Obama? Why would Judge Carter not want to know, as well as the rest of the U.S. God Bless America, Thank you to all who have served to Protect her.

  6. Jurisdiction is correct because this is multi-district litigation, and should be filed as multi-district litigation, because the President holds authority in every district of the U.S.A., therefore the plaintiff can file in the district most convenient for the plaintiff. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  7. So the Jan 26th court date is not going to happen? The information regarding these cases are misleading. What is going on?
    Mr. Charlton replies: VRWCshirts, you have to realize that these cases move not only through the courts but through time: when you are reading any report look at the date of the report; the case schedule was set after the Oct. 5th hearing, but it became a moot issue with the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. Even if Carter would grant the motion to reconsider (which no one, I presume, believes is likely) the dates for the trial would change.

  8. It ain’t over till it’s over, and it won’t be over until Barry/Barack Obuma/Suterro/Soetero vacates the premises. Orly should get a Medal of Freedom for her heroic efforts to see justice done, whereas our congressional leaders and judges deserve only our contempt.

    Thanks, John, for breaking down Orly’s excellent motion into bite-sized chunks. Now the people cry for justice.

  9. Of course, the $64,000 question remains — maybe never known unless and until a retired Judge Carter elects to publish his memoirs: Was his Order, replete with errors and gratuitous faults (even his hiring the Obama-law firm connected clerk) actually intentional, to enable Orly to get some case, any case, to discovery and merits without being held up in appeal — or was it merely a horribly bad and ignorant decision?

    Perhaps Judge Carter’s fellow marines may want to reserve judgment on him to a later date.

  10. Looks like the real loser is the
    “marine” judge, doesn’t it. Big talk from a small frog. Semper Fi you coward. Thanks to the real marines in the service who have real courage.

  11. What about Keyes’ claim for damages?
    Mr. Charlton replies: Jack, this is a Motion for Reconsideration, not a Second Amended complaint: since the First Amended complaint and the First Complaint sought declartory relief and injuntive relief, and not damages, Orly Taitz could only seek damages by filing a Second Amended Complaint. She cannot do that without a Motion to Reconsider or a Motion to file a Second Complaint. This MTC simply points out errors of facts and law as a basis for asking for the reconsideration. And if you see all the errors Orly has listed, you’d be inclined to believe as she does that a sloppy law clerk wrote the Ruling, not Carter. Does Carter now have the integrity to grant a reconsideration? Probably not, as he has painted himself into a corner of ignominy, and proud men who do things like that rarely come out of their holes. A man of integrity would cringe at even one error being found in his Ruling, and would grant reconsideration for the sake of justice. This filing by Orly gives Carter a chance at redemption.