Tweet
Judge Carter Strikes Again: Dismisses Judd V. Obama Eligibility & Voter Fraud Lawsuit
Birther Report
10/18/2012
Excerpt:
KEITH JUDD ET AL. V. BARACK OBAMA ET AL.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS (DKTS. 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 33) AS MOOT
Before the Court is a lawsuit that eight Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) brought against President Barack Obama and twenty-eight other Defendants.
The gist of the lawsuit, to the extent a short description can capture its claims, is that the President is not a natural born citizen; that massive voter fraud has been and will be perpetrated; that officials in government are involved in those two conspiracies; and that various officials and journalists, along with participating in those conspiracies, have also separately violated the rights of the Plaintiffs through defamation and other actions appearing to sound in tort. Defendants include local, state, and national officials, journalists, media outlets, the Postmaster General, and a federal judge.
Among the Plaintiffs is Orly Taitz, an attorney who is also the group’s counsel. Ms. Taitz has brought previous lawsuits with some similarity to the present case. See, e.g., Drake v. Obama, 654 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs removed this case from State Superior Court themselves. Response To Order Of The Court (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). That fact is fatal to this Court’s jurisdiction, and thus the Court will sua sponte dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Facts
On September 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, titled “First Amended Complaint,” with fourteen causes of action and a request for class action certification. Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs’ counsel did not file an electronic form of the claim-initiating document, as required by Local Rule 3-2. Order Requiring Plaintiffs To File An Electronic Copy (Dkt. 6). In response to this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed a seven page Notice Of Removal that was filed in Superior Court. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). This case’s docket still has no electronic copy of the Complaint.
The Notice Of Removal makes clear that Plaintiffs removed the action from state court. Id. at 6 (“Plaintiffs hereby remove this action from the Superior Court of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.”).
II. Legal Standard
CONTINUED BELOW & HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110454844/...ter-10-17-2012
Orly Taitz responded on her blog: All of the California Causes of Action of Judd v Obama will continue in the Superior Court of CA, Judge Glenda Sanders. All of the Federal causes of action will be refiled separately tomorrow together with the emergency application for stay of certification of all votes for Obama due to his use of forged IDs.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...kes-again.html
Birther Report
10/18/2012
Excerpt:
KEITH JUDD ET AL. V. BARACK OBAMA ET AL.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS (DKTS. 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 33) AS MOOT
Before the Court is a lawsuit that eight Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) brought against President Barack Obama and twenty-eight other Defendants.
The gist of the lawsuit, to the extent a short description can capture its claims, is that the President is not a natural born citizen; that massive voter fraud has been and will be perpetrated; that officials in government are involved in those two conspiracies; and that various officials and journalists, along with participating in those conspiracies, have also separately violated the rights of the Plaintiffs through defamation and other actions appearing to sound in tort. Defendants include local, state, and national officials, journalists, media outlets, the Postmaster General, and a federal judge.
Among the Plaintiffs is Orly Taitz, an attorney who is also the group’s counsel. Ms. Taitz has brought previous lawsuits with some similarity to the present case. See, e.g., Drake v. Obama, 654 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs removed this case from State Superior Court themselves. Response To Order Of The Court (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). That fact is fatal to this Court’s jurisdiction, and thus the Court will sua sponte dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Facts
On September 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, titled “First Amended Complaint,” with fourteen causes of action and a request for class action certification. Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs’ counsel did not file an electronic form of the claim-initiating document, as required by Local Rule 3-2. Order Requiring Plaintiffs To File An Electronic Copy (Dkt. 6). In response to this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed a seven page Notice Of Removal that was filed in Superior Court. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). This case’s docket still has no electronic copy of the Complaint.
The Notice Of Removal makes clear that Plaintiffs removed the action from state court. Id. at 6 (“Plaintiffs hereby remove this action from the Superior Court of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.”).
II. Legal Standard
CONTINUED BELOW & HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110454844/...ter-10-17-2012
Orly Taitz responded on her blog: All of the California Causes of Action of Judd v Obama will continue in the Superior Court of CA, Judge Glenda Sanders. All of the Federal causes of action will be refiled separately tomorrow together with the emergency application for stay of certification of all votes for Obama due to his use of forged IDs.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...kes-again.html