UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MARSHA G. RIVERNIDER, ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER, and CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CBS, and all John & Jane Does, 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER SETTING HEARING
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte on the Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause (Docket Entry 20) the Notice of Receipt of Letter from Dr. Orly Taitz (Docket Entry 19), the November 13, 2009, Order to Show Cause (Docket Entry 21) and the subsequent responses to that Order, which were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow. The Court has directed the undersigned to determine whether sanctions should be imposed on any party or attorney related to the filing of the First Amended Motion to Substitute Counsel for Pro Se Litigants. With the Court being advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. This matter is set for an evidentiary hearing on January 12, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 203D, 299 East Broward
2. The Court requires the attendance at this hearing by (1) plaintiffs Marsha G. Rivernider, Robert H. Rivernider and Charles Edward Lincoln, III; (2) counsel for the defendant, and (3) Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of December, 2009.
Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.
Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.
The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.
While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.
The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.
An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.
Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.
Thus the Court concluded
The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.
Dec 282009
CHAPTER 35: QUO WARRANTO
SUBCHAPTER I — ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SUBCHAPTER II — ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBCHAPTER III — PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS
Dec 282009
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein.
CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 34(j) OF THE COURT’S RULES
_______________________________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_______________________________________________________
No. 09-5080
Consolidating No. 09-5161
____________________________________________________
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-2254
____________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
AND VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN
____________________________________________________
In a hilarious move, the JagHunter, having failed to convince a Grand Jury of the case against Obama, is now ‘ordering’ Special Agent Richard L. Lambert, Jr.of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Knoxville to arrest Obama. Why? Because in a misreading of facts, the JagHunter believes that
Obama forcibly subjugates United States Citizens to secret police power the United States Constitution prohibits. International criminal “police officers,” freely operate on American soil obedient to international law unknown to the United States Constitution.
What is Obama’s crime? In an executive order he revoked parts of the restrictions placed on Interpol by Reagan. Somehow this has been ‘translated’ by some into allowing Interpol full reign on US soil. Don’t these people know how Interpol functions? Why is it that ignorance is guiding these people? Asking for the arrest of the President for doing his job and following the law.
For Immediate Release
December 17, 2009
Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
Reagan’s executive order stated
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
June 16,1983.
Obama merely extended full privileges to Interpol, the same privileges which have been extended to cover many other international organizations.
Dec 262009
Orly versus the facts argued
ng:
- During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant US attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia.
The facts
From the Oct 5 hearing page 8 lines 13-23:
“THE COURT: And then in your argument you stated that minimally if the Court disagreed, it should be transferred to the D.C. District.
MR. WEST: No, Your Honor. The quo warranto — the plaintiffs have made the argument that the quo warranto aspects of this case should be transferred to the D.C. District. We have not suggested that that be transferred. If the — if, in fact, they wish to bring a quo warranto action, they should bring an original one in the D.C. District.
THE COURT: Thank you.”
Page 18 lines 7-14:
“MR. WEST: I don’t believe that quo warranto is applicable to the President of the United States. I would not concede that. However, if it were, the only statute that we know of that would cover this kind of a situation would be the D.C. statute. But I think that we’re not conceding at all that quo warranto would apply to the President of the United States.”
Dec 262009
Orly seems to encourage people to ‘bare arms’… But is she really suggesting an armed insurrection? How ‘patriotic’ of her…
there is a lot of corruption in the judiciary, just as it is in the government and Congress. Until people will take to the streets and demonstrate preserving their 2nd amendment rights to bare arms and organise in militias, the judges will keep deciding for the usurper
Dec 252009
Many good references but this one caught my eyes
Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Merry Christmas and God Bless.
Recent Comments