some excellent reading here...
Important! Motion for reconsideration in Barnett v Obama filed.
Hearing on Motion for reconsideration has been requested for November 20th.[size=117]
Motions 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Captain Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al
CASE CLOSED on 10/29/2009
(ANx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 11/9/2009 at 4:29 PM PST and filed on 11/9/2009
. . .
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and motion for reconsideration of October 29th order under Rule 59E and Rule 60.
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 its 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. While Mr. Velamoor will surely claim that he didn’t work on Obama case before, his employment with Perkins Coie should’ve disqualified him, and indeed the order reads as if it is written by the defense counsel, highly biased against the plaintiffs, 99 percent of the order either misstates the facts or the pleadings or oral argument, it misstates the law and is full of personal attacks, de facto accusing decorated members of the military of being cowards; and this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the power of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel, to use innuendo, ex parte defamatory and slanderous statements to assassinate her character, to destroy her as a human being and endanger her law license, only because she is not only the only attorney brave enough to bring most of eligibility legal actions, to bring actions from plaintiffs with real standing, the only one to get any hearings, but she is also the only one to bring forward evidence from licensed investigators showing Mr. Obama committing multiple felonies, for which he should be serving lengthy prison term. The court erred in hiring Mr. Velamoor or in the alternative not recusing himself from hearing this case.
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: “[N]o, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibilityâ€