Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

p=8969 [Caution: Frequently infected site]

Update 03-17-10 Motion for Reconsideration in Cook v Good filed with the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals

Posted on March 19, 2010

No. 09-14698-CC






WANDA L. GOOD; et al.,


Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court,

Middle District of Georgia,



CSB #223433
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy. Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082


I certify that: The attached motion for stay is in compliance with the 11th Circuit Rule 27-1

Dated: March 17, 2010. Respectfully submitted,


Attorney for Appellant

In addition to the parties, Appellant certifies the following persons have an interest in this


Dated: March 17, 2010. Respectfully submitted,


Attorney for Appellant


Appellant is an individual and not a corporation.

Dated: March 17, 2010. Respectfully submitted,


Attorney for Appellant


Pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 27 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-2 Appellant
requests the Court reconsider its order of February 26, 2010 due to an error of fact and law.


This case was dismissed for lack of prosecution on November 24, 2009. Appellant
thereafter filed a timely motion to reinstate and a proposed brief. The courts own electronic
docket irrefutably shows timely electronic submittal. Counsel could not prosecute any earlier as
her pro huc vice request was not granted earlier. On January 13, 2010, deficiencies were noted
by the Clerk in the brief and Appellant notified and given an opportunity to make corrections,
which were timely and properly done to the satisfaction of the clerk. Appellant filed a compliant
brief on January 21, 2010. Inexplicably, the Motion to reinstate was denied with no reason
provided. Appellant seeks reconsideration of the order denying reinstatement.


Circuit Rule 27-1(c)(11) vests the Clerk with the power to decide unopposed Motions to
Reinstate subject to review by the Court. However, this discretion is not without limits. Motions
to Reinstate Appeals while discretionary are governed by Circuit Rule 42-3.

Circuit Rule 42-3(e) states:

“Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Remedy Default. An appeal dismissed pursuant to this rule
may be reinstated only upon the timely filing of a motion to set aside the dismissal and remedy
the default showing extraordinary circumstances, accompanied by the required brief and record

Such a motion showing extraordinary circumstances, accompanied by the required brief and
record excerpts, must be filed within 14 days of the date the clerk enters the order dismissing the
appeal. The timely filing of such a motion, accompanied by the required brief and record
excerpts, and a showing of extraordinary circumstances, is the exclusive method of seeking to set
aside a dismissal entered pursuant to this rule. An untimely filed motion to set aside dismissal
and remedy default must be denied unless the motion demonstrates extraordinary circumstances
justifying the delay in filing the motion, and no further filings shall be accepted by the clerk in
that dismissed appeal.”

Appellant complied with Circuit Rule 42-3(e) but the motion nonetheless was denied. A
review of published decisions involving denial of reinstatement of appeal by the 5th and 11th
Circuits reveals that most reinstatements were denied due to escape by criminal defendants. See
for example United States v. Rosales, 13 F.3d 1461(11th Cir. 1994). In the few decisions
involving civil cases, excusable neglect has been found adequate reason to permit reinstatement
when there has been no prejudice to other parties. See Marcaida v. Rascoe, 569 F.2d 828 (5th
Cir. 1978) wherein the Clerk’s decision to deny reinstatement was overturned by this Court’s
predecessors in the 5th Circuit based on previous practice in that Circuit. Court’s denial of the
reinstatement shows bias against the plaintiff/appellant, who happens to be an officer of the US
military, who was subjected to retaliation due to the fact that he spoke up about the current
president Barack Hussein Obama not being legitimate for presidency and being involved in the
social security fraud by virtue of his use of multiple social security numbers, none of which was
issued in the state of HI. This court’s refusal to reinstate this case, in light of the fact that the
counsel has filed the proper brief and motion electronically, the moment she got proper pro hac
vice right to do so from this very court, and within the 14 days as allowed, not only shows bias
on part of the court, but also suggests that this court is using its power to dismiss the appeal in a
case of the sitting president involved in activity, such as elections fraud, social security fraud, is
done with improper purpose of aiding and abetting the current President in felonious fraud
violation of the civil rights of the plaintiff under the color of authority. No one is immune from
prosecution for aiding and abetting criminal activity, misprision of felony and subornation of
crimes: not the sitting President (as evidenced by the Watergate investigation), not appellate
court judges and not the clerks of the Court of Appeals. Additionally, the counsel in this case Dr.
Orly Taitz, ESQ is a candidate on the ballot, running for the position of the Secretary of State of
the State of California. The one word decision to deny the appeal without any explanation or
justification only adds wood to the fire of hate crimes committed against the counsel, as well as
against her whole family and her three children, as they all are subjected to death threats, insults,
intimidation, harassment, tampering with her car and other hate crimes. The situation became so
bad, that it necessitated an official appeal and request for protection from the UN Committee for
Civil rights defenders in Geneva, Switzerland.

The court of law is about substance. Substance trumps form. The underlying case, is a case of the
District judge Clay D. Land overstepping his judicial discretion in dismissing the underlying case
of US army officer Stefan Cook who brought incriminating evidence about the sitting president,
whereby the sitting district judge abused his discretion and improperly dismissed the case, as
well further abused his discretion in a related case of Rhodes v Macdonald in not only
improperly dismissing the case, but also in an attempt to intimidate the under signed counsel by
improperly assessing sanctions and trying to pressure the under signed counsel into silence. In
regards to the substance of the underlying case, it is one of the most important cases in the
Nation today, possibly in the US history, as it relates to the criminal activity committed by one
who got into the position of US Presidency, based on such activity. There was no violation of
form, motion for reinstatement was properly filed within 14 days, it was filed with the Appellate
Brief electronically. Even if there was a minor procedural error in the form of the filing, it is so
minuscule in comparison to the magnitude of the crimes committed, in comparison with
substance of the case, that denying an appeal on such minor procedural error, whatever it might
be (no explanation was provided in the one word order “Denied”), is criminal in itself.

Therefore, Appellant respectfully requests the Court review the Clerk’s decision in the
matter and reinstate this appeal. Further, Appellant requests the Court consider the attached
exhibits which indicate a pervasive pattern of persecution of Appellant’s counsel in the context
of the subject of the Appeal.

DATED: March 17, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Orly Taitz for Appellant

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the:


Was served by MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL on March 17, 2010, on the following parties:

Rebecca Elaine Ausprung

U.S. Army Litigation Division
901 North Stuart Street Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Fax: 703-696-8126

Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR

Assistant US Attorney
P.O. Box 1702
Macon, Georgia 31202-1702

On this 17th day of March, 2010, which will provide service to all parties.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq