Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
09-14698-CC
___________________________
v.
December 7, 2009
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................1
B. Statement of Facts..........................................................................3
STANDARD OF REVIEW.........................................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................................................................13
ARGUMENT...............................................................................................16
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT...........................................................11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Gerstein v. Pugh,
420 U.S. 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)............13
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S,Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ..................13
STATUTES
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction, as the order being reviewed came from the 11 th
The case revolves around the issues of Federal law and US Constitution and
there was a complete diversity between the parties and because the
jurisdiction does not lie solely in the Supreme Court of Georgia under the
Georgia Constitution, Art. 6 §6, PII. See GA Const., Art 6, §5, III
Did the District court err in law and fact in dismissing the whole Legal
Dismiss, filed by the defendants only a day prior to dismissal, by not giving
the plaintiff an opportunity to file an actual complaint beyond the Motion for
TRO and injunction, and by disregarding most of the facts of the case, most
egregiously the fact that the military acted in bad faith and pressured the
5
fired after he exercised his first Amendment rights to question legitimacy of
the Commander in Chief due to the split allegiance and lack of legitimate
Statement of Facts
military officer, who has served this country for some twenty years on active
area of security and computer security, and he has advanced degrees and
Economics. Major Cook has served in the field of battle before and is ready,
the Commander in Chief, specifically the fact that the Commander in Chief
former elite unit Scotland Yard investigator Mr. Sankey, has used some 39
assigned numbers, none of these numbers were issued in the state of Hawaii,
6
where Mr. Obama was born, according to Mr. Obama’s claims. Major Cook
was also concerned about the fact that according to a leading US Forensic
Life Birth, issued in 2007, and presented by Mr. Obama to the public, cannot
the Health Department in Hawaii. In spite of over 100 legal actions in state
and federal courts demanding to see Mr. Obama’s vital records, Mr. Obama
has refused to unseal his original records, such as original birth certificate
from 1961 from Hawaii, his birthing file from Kapiolani hospital, his college
and university enrollment records, and instead has instructed his private
attorney, currently White House Counsel, Mr. Robert Bauer from Perkins
residents to get Hawaiian birth certificate and Hawaiian statute 338-5 allows
who of course can be biased, without any corroborating evidence from any
hospital. Even more troubling is the fact that the director of the Health
7
regulations, however she consistently refused to provide a clear answer, as
given upon Mr. Obama’s adoption by his Indonesian step father and
action to stop his deployment and stop any retaliatory actions by the military
declaratory relief on this issue. When the military revoked Major Cook’s
clear that Mr. Obama and the military have nothing to show, it became a
political story number 5 in the World, and in order to prevent future similar
small military contractor Simtech, to have him fired from his $120, 000
his position. The inference of this case is that it appears that the US district
judge Clay D. Land has colluded with Obama administration and the top
8
brass of the military by throwing out the whole legal action, by refusing to
grant the injunction, by not giving the undersigned counsel any time to
the case, specifically the fact of retaliation by the military and claiming that
the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of injury and lack of standing.
Judge Land didn’t see a loss of $120,000 a year position as an injury. Judge
Land equally ignored all legal argument, specifically the fact that two other
high ranked officers joined the current action and the fact that this is
specifically type of an repeated injury that evades the judicial review and
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is Whether the district court has
1.abused its discretion in dismissing the case within one day after
receiving the motion to dismiss without giving the undersigned counsel any
time to respond, while she was allowed 20 days according to local rules, by
ignoring most facts of the case, specifically the fact that more members of
the military with proper standing have joined the action and the fact that the
9
2. Whether the district court has erred in applying the law, specifically on
3. Whether the district court has erred in applying the facts while reaching
conclusion that the plaintiffs have suffered no injury and had no immenent
injury.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
Judge Land has dismissed the whole legal action on July 16, the
second day after the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed. The court’s
action was on the same day as that motion was even seen by the plaintiffs
and the undersigned counsel, who were traveling from out of state to the
hearing. The court dismissed the whole case within one day without
10
“-7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent's counsel desiring to submit a
response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the same within twenty (20) days
The court dismissed the legal action before the undersigned counsel had an
opportunity to even read the motion. These actions by Judge Land are not
only a flagrant error and violation of the local rules, but are a violation of the
appellant’s rights to due process under the 4th and 9th amendment and 42
U.S.C §§1983,1988, which would provide valid grounds to reverse the order
to dismiss.
In the order to dismiss the court argue that the court has no
jurisdiction because the plaintiff Cook has no standing. The court argues that
the plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirement for standing, - of having injury
contractor to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year position. How can
the court miss such an important issue and not address it in the order? Judge
11
Land read his order to dismiss immediately after a short TRO hearing. It was
quite clear that he prepared the order in advance, before hearing the
hearing. Either judge Land didn’t read the Application for Preliminary
Injunction, which would show negligence on part of the court or he read the
which would show bias and bad faith on part of the court. Omitting the
from his $120,000 a year job represents a clear error of material fact,
order. Here the court assumes facts not in evidence and ignores fact in
been in the military for over 20 years either as an active duty officer or
active reserve. Active reserve officers are deployed every year. Therefore
injury from being fired from his position as a defense contractor under
The court ruled that there was no evidence for the undersigned
counselor’s argument that this issue falls within the narrow “capable of
soldiers and officers who are being deployed on a daily basis. They are
entitled to know whether the orders coming from the Commander in Chief
are lawful. In Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43
would not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot.. In oral
argument the undersigned counselor equated this issue to Roe v Wade 410
US 113,125,93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and the issue of women
getting pregnant and not being able to have their case reviewed, as it was
13
rendered moot after each delivery, at which time the above doctrine was
introduced. It was actually argued that some cynics might say that Obama’s
the American Presidency. In Oregon Advocacy Ctr v Mink, 322 F.3d 1101,
1118 (9th Cir.2003). it was held that plaintiffs have standing if they are
the Commander in Chief. To this point is the DC Circuit court held that
UkranianAmerican Bar Assn’n v Baker, 893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir
yet evading review, Judge Land’s finding evades the premises of basic
human logic. Even if Major Cook’s orders were revoked shortly after this
legal action was filed, there are thousands of similar orders issued every day.
Therefore the court erred in its assertion that this issue does not fall
14
The court found that two officers who joined this action as additional
plaintiffs “do not have standing to pursue their claims”p3. Again the court
assumed facts not in evidence and ignored facts in evidence. One of the
officers is lifetime subject to recall, and the other is in active reserves and
can be called to deploy at any time with but a few days notice. Per the
The court erred in completely avoiding the legal argument that the
fact of retaliatory pressure from the military to have Major Cook fired from
and specific military Whistleblower acts as well as the First and Ninth
15
The court erred in not giving the undersigned counsel an opportunity
to file an actual Complaint. As the matter at hand was urgent, the counselor
had filed a TRO and then an application for preliminary injunction. As the
situation was changing by the day, the plaintiff needed time to respond to the
Justice and file an actual complaint. While the court could have jurisdiction
Injunction and not give the plaintiff time to file the actual complaint.
CONCLUSION
Due to the above mentioned the district court erred in dismissing the
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Orly Taitz
______________________
Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949)-683-5411
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
counsel:
/s/Orly Taitz____________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
December 7, 2009
17
No. 09-14698-CC
___________________________
v.
December 7, 2009
18
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
Undersigned counsel respectfully motions the court for leave of court to file
documents out of time due to the fact that she did not receive the briefing
schedule. Additionally her Pro Hac Vice was approved only last week on
December 2, 2009 and was received in her office only two days ago on
local rules 42-1, 42-2 and 42-3. Appellant brief and record excerpts are
attached.
Respectfully submitted,
19
Designation of Records
transmitted for the purpose of appeal heretofore filed in the above entitled
case:
The undersigned counsel certifies that the appellant brief is 21 pages long
and does not exceed allowed 30 page count or 14,000 word count.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
counsel:
20
Randy.Aderhold@usdoj.gov
21