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