OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

      In the heart of this political persecution which went on against me for a very long time, I am appealing to anyone in the media to be courageous enough to promptly convey this open letter to the President of the United States George W. Bush bringing to his attention as to why an American citizen has been officially subjected to brutal and political persecution in this land of the free on account of his Arab Race.

 

      Because of the cruel and unusual punishment I have been experienced most recently in courts; I would urge the President to issue an executive order, demanding that the U.S...Attorney General office conducts immediate investigation of the egregious and unprecedented constitutional violations to an American citizen solely because of his Arab race.  The President should know that this is the most serious hate crime one has endured in this land of the free for a very long time.

 

      Those who control this country and the media with an iron fist should know that there will be at least one courageous reporter who will convey this letter to the President, because it is the duty and the obligation of the media to report this political crime to make America proud.

 

 Now it is high time to stop those outlaw gangs and bandits who are behind this crime from secretly continuing to terrorize people they hate just to serve their evil-political ends. 

 

      In the meantime, the solidarity signatures of all Americans and all human beings everywhere are welcome and will give further momentum to this appeal.

 

                                                                                                                  Samir Taha

 12-11-2003  /  phone 503-526-3322

                                                                                                                

                                           

 

 

 

  1) Samir Taha

  2)  3625 SW 108 Ave

  3)  Beaverton, OR 97005

  4) (503) 526-3322

  5 ) IN PRO SE

  6)

  7)                       IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

  8)                                      FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

  9) 

 10)  SAMIR TAHA,                                        )         CASE NO. CO33769CV

 11)                                        Plaintiff,             )         OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

 12)                            vs.                                     )         MOTION TO DISMISS

                                                                             )        

 13)  RAYMOND TINDELL,                         )       

 14)                                                                      )    

 15)                                        Defendant.         )            

 16)       1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 17)      At the heart of this case lie two critical questions:  (1) Why plaintiff's

 17) constitutional rights are being violated to the extreme, is it race, is it

 18) politics, or is it to show me who rules this land? And when anyone does harm

 19) to the Plaintiff and a court action is taken, (2) why always motion to dismiss,   

 20) to strike and summary judgment are filed and always granted without

 21) questions. Defendant is moving to dismiss as if corruption and conspiracy

 22) charges in a court of law mean nothing to him that he can commit any

 23) violations he likes against plaintiff and seek impunity simply because the

 24) victim is an Arab, ignoring the fact that I am an American citizen too.

 25)     What defendant filed is not motion to dismiss, it is motion to suppress

 26) a hate crime against one's race and he is asking the courts to legalize the

        1- OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

            MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 

 1) persecution of the Plaintiff so more violations against him can continue in order

 2) to make his life a living hell in this land of the free. This a seizure to Plaintiff's

 3) civil liberties. It is a seizure to his smile and peace of mind which went on for

 4) a very long time. It is also a seizure to the American dream in the land of the

 5) free where lawyers who are required to uphold the law are killing the dream

 6) of happiness and justice for all. To this, every American feels ashamed.

 7)      This could be Plaintiff's last legal recourse in This Honorable Court and in

 8) Washington County Courthouse the Honorable Judges here only deliver

 9) justice to victims not dismissal so no American will be ashamed anymore.

10) No one wants a repetition of the Nazi era in this land of the free. 

11)           2. BACKGROUND

12)      The facts and the evidence of this case are so conspicuous. Plaintiff who

13) is racially oppressed, hired Defendant to get him justice and due process

14) of law after a lawsuit filed against him by the same corporation which  

15) forced him to go out of business. Plaintiff and defendant agreed on a

16) legal strategy to fight back based on the facts and evidence available

17) so justice will be served. Defendant agreed and promised to proceed

18) diligently, rather, he shocked Plaintiff  when all the pleadings in the

19) case were stricken on illegal motion that was ruled upon in secrecy.

20)     Just few days ago, I felt I have been devastated again by the

21) unconstitutional process Circuit Court in Multnomah County did to my

22) case and pleading  after it rendered its second ruling affirming what it

23) ruled upon August 4,  2003 when Defendant, through his full cooperation

24) with opposing counsel, helped create a new law called motion to strike all

25)  Plaintiff's pleading word by word and letter by letter as if the Plaintiff has

26) no right to speak, answer or defend against those who put him out of business

    2-OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

       MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

1)  and deprived him of his rights to make a living in this land of the free.

2)       That shocking evidence will be presented to this Honorable Court

3) to show how Defendant, who caused that serious injury to occur, turned

 4) Plaintiff from being the legally winner in a case entrusted in him to a big

 5) loser where all constitutional rights were taken away from him as a result

 6) of Defendant's complicity and full cooperation with my adversaries. 

 7)      Plaintiff, however, will ask this Honorable Court to review the

 8) unprecedented violations to the rules of law Multnomah County Circuit

 9) Court rendered, because of fear into becoming the new law of the land against

10) people who have been already subjected to persecution in the land of the

11) free on account of their race.

12)      Plaintiff will also ask this court to review the legality and validity of

13) appearing in a motion to strike or summary judgment in disguise against a 

14) complaint and defenses and the abuses used to make it the decision-factor for

15) an entire case while taking away one's  constitutional rights by a stroke of a pen.

16)           2. CONTINUING CONSPIRACY 

17)      By filling a motion to dismiss, Defendant is encouraging the court to

18) throw legally valid claims sought by the Plaintiff in this case, and is asking

19) this Honorable Court to give him and those who are supporting him

20) free hand to commit racism against Plaintiff's race so they can continue to             

21) deny and violate the legally protected rights to him and to anyone they hate

22) without telling the court why this person should be denied such legal rights.

23) As if the Plaintiff has no legal recourse anywhere. Defendant, an attorney

24) at law, is asking  the court to slam the door in Plaintiff's face and deny him basic

25) legal rights and some dignity. Defendant is telling the court that Plaintiff has no

26) rights to defend and prosecute claims the same way he denied him the right

      3-OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

          MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

 1) to a fair and honest representation. Hence, the question arises as to whom 

 2) authorized defendant to subject plaintiff into persecution in this land of the free?

 3) Why defendant has suddenly changed and sided with my adversaries, thus,

 4) violating ORS 9.460(4) which requires lawyers to stand by the defenseless

 5) and the oppressed. Now it is the duty of this Honorable Court to deny

 6) Defendant's motion to dismiss or suppress because this court believes in equal

 7) justice for all and it is legally and morally bound to protect and redress 

 8) the suffering of oppressed people such as the Plaintiff.

 9)      Regardless how opposing counsel and his client trying to attack Plaintiff's

10) Complaint on technical points and falsifying authorities, this case has

11) substantial legal merits that not only concern the plaintiff, but also the public at

12) large. We all hire lawyers and expect not to be betrayed and victimized by them

13) and not dump clients for their personal ends. For example, why Defendant

14) turned against Plaintiff? Was he bought by my adversaries? Was he advancing a

15) hidden-political agenda against Plaintiff's race? Unless Defendant has an

16) an interest to participate with others to harm his client, one should ask why

17) he did not carry out his duties to a client who paid him and trusted him?

18)           3. MOTON TO SUPRESS

19)      ORCP 13 (b) provides that every complaint has an answer and here again

20) we witness opposing counsel filing a demurrer or general denial disguised                 

21)  as motion to dismiss. This motion is similar to the illegal motion to strike my

22) adversaries filed to throw all my defenses and counter claims in Multnomah

23) Circuit Court case in which Defendant helped them to succeed in full.

24)      Now, opposing counsel intends to seek that every court should follow

25) suit and apply this dangerous precedent by denying legal rights to those people

26) he and his client hate and despise. He ignores the fact that Plaintiff is protected

      4-OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

          MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

 1) under federal and state laws.  Article I section 10 of the State of Oregon

 2) Constitution spells the protection clause very clearly in the bill of rights:

 3)               " No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly

 4)                 and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every

 5)                 man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him

 6)                 in his person, property and his reputation.   

 7)          Article I section 17 also provides :

 8)             "In all civil cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.

 9)           Similarly, the above rights are also protected under the Fifth and

10) Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution for everyone and against

11) anyone not just government and public officials as opposing counsel claims.

12)        Opposing counsel asserted neither legal basis nor evidence or sworn

13) statements to back up his motion to dismiss.  Instead, he makes assertion

14) of insufficient and false facts, which are all unsworn statements of counsel.

15) Opposing counsel is making every effort to have this case decided based

16) on the pleading and avoid having these critical and unsettled issues of law be

17) ultimately decided by the trier of the facts: the Jury. He also seems to

18) encourage and promote racism against Plaintiff's race while at the same

19) time encourage and approve corruption to the integrity of our

20) jurisprudence system which he and his client are feeling free to violate.

21)           4. PROCEDUARAL SAFEGURDS                       

22)       When claims as in this case are substantial and supported by conclusive

23) evidence, filing motion to dismiss them raises the issue of immorality among

24) lawyers in particular, who are willing to commit serious procedural

25) violations in order to avoid any finder of facts hearing and rectifying their

26) corruption to the legal profession. If they care less about Oregon Code

      5- OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

           MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 1)) of Professional Responsibility, then they care less about the public interest and

 2) the procedural safeguards intended to protect the values of our legal system.

 3) In a landmark ruling, the great Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme 

 4) Court described the procedural safeguards as those ones which spell out the      

 5) difference between rule by law or rule by whim or caprice.  Justice

 6) Douglas would feel ashamed if this case comes before him as to how far

 7) lawyers can go to corrupt these rules of law and substitute them with

 8) rules of their own.

 9)        5. DECIION OF OREGON STATE BAR

10)      About two months ago. Plaintiff  filed a complaint with Oregon

11) State Bar against Defendant.  On Nov. 6, 2003, the Bar issued its first

12) decision on the complaint, finding a credible evidence to support

13) Defendant's misconduct. ( Exhibit A). As of now, Plaintiff is cooperating

14) with the Bar to help with the investigation, while Defendant continues to

15) to lie and mislead the Bar about his flagrant misconduct in order to

16) prejudice the administration of justice Plaintiff is entitled to.

17)           6. UNCONSITIUTIIONAL DECISIONS

18)      On Decemeber 4, 2003, Judge Edward Jones, the same judge who

19) struck all my pleadings on August 4, 2003, issued another ruling

20) regarding the second illegal, untimely and improper motion to strike,               

21) allowing all my affirmative defenses and counter-claims be stricken

22) despite the legally valid objections submitted by attorney Matt Daily

23) to deny that motion which was not supported by any evidence and was

24) full of lies and deception.  Now that the trial date was set for Dec. 8, 2003, Plaintiff

26) has been barred fom presenting any defense, counter-claims or evidence

      6- OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

           MOITION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 1) against my adversaries during a semi trial that will only decide how much

 2) money I have to pay to my adversaries. While I am the legally winner of

 3) the case, those, who Defendant helped them corrupt and taint the legal

 4) process, are prevailing illegally and immorally and so far succeeding in robbing

 5) Plaintiff of all his rights. That would have been impossible had Defendant

 6) exercised the least legal care to deny an illegal ruling against me Aug. 4, 2003.

 7)           7. ILLEGAL MOTION TO STRIKE

 8)      Evidence will show that Defendant purposely allowed my adversaries

 9) unprecedented 128 days to appear despite fact that they were in default.

10) ORCP 7(c) 2 provides that 30 days were allowed for anyone to appear. It

11) was only until June 13, 2003 when Defendant sent a 10 days notice to

12) appear or a default will be filed. When the 10 days expired, Defendant

13) did nothing and allowed them to file motion to strike on July 2, 2003.

14) Based on local circuit rule 5.010, opposing counsel is required to confer

15) with Defendant prior to filling the motion. Did Defendant object and

16) advise opposing counsel that motion to strike can't be filed more than

17) 10 days after serving the pleading which took place Feb. 26, 2003?

18) Unless there was a secret deal between the two to conspire and throw

19) Plaintiff's case in its entirety, Defendant could have moved and asked the

20) court to throw that illegal motion as untimely to say the least. He did

21) not? Was it the incompetence of Defendant or he just acted so to prejudice            

22) Plaintiff's case to the extreme and does him serious harm.

23)      In addition, Plaintiff has recently obtained some discovery from

24) opposing counsel after 11 months of demand to it. The document reveals

25) that IOS Capital has filed illegal and false claims against Plaintiff and

26) their only chance to recover any money from Plaintiff was through the help

      7- OBJECTIONS TO DEFEDNAT'S

          MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

1)     of Defendant who allowed them to prevail through illegal and unethical

2)     means. In his first six months of handling the case, Defendant never obtained

3)     any discovery which was a high priority to Plaintiff's case. Had Defendant

4)     obtained that document in particular, the case would have been resolved

 5) in my favor at the initial month or two of the case.  Now, 13 months passed

 6) by all my defenses and claims were stricken again along with my rights to

 7) a jury and was barred from presenting  any evidence in a due process forum.

 8)        8. LEGAL AUTHORITY

 9)      Plaintiff needs not present extensive legal argument at this time because

10) there are sufficient facts and evidence to support his claims. However, this

11) Honorable Court should construe Defendant's motion as a summary

12) judgment motion, disguised as a motion to dismiss. This court should deny

13) it and reject it outright because it is the proof itself, not the pleading

14) which determines whether a party has a cause of action. Richards v.

15) Dahl, 289 Or 747, 753, 618 P2d 418 (1980). 

16)        Plaintiff has already informed opposing counsel that deposition

17) of his client and other witnesses should start this month to further

18) prove that all the facts asserted by Plaintiff are triable issues and not

19) subject to motion to dismiss where opposing counsel intentions are

20) to cover-up the corruption of his client, thus, endangering others who

21)  may be trapped, deceived and crossed by lawyers.               

22)      As this Honorable Court knows, Plaintiff cause of action seeks both

23) legal and equitable remedies that can't be denied to a victim of racism

24) because of the humanity issues involved in the action. No human would

25) do such flagrant act to another human unless they are wholeheartedly believe

26) in racism and bigotry in this land of the free and the home of the brave.

      8-OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S

          MOTION TO DISMISS

 

 

1) Such kind of people wants to divide our great America into racial lines

2) just to advance a hidden political agenda that not only will defeat the

3) integration and equality among Americans, but also will defeat America

4) itself as a one big family to all races.

 5)           9. STATUS OF THE CASE

 6)      Although a recent decision to re-strike all Plaintiff's Amended pleading

 7) on the spot by Judge Edward Jones, in realty Judge Jones's final ruling

8) on the case was August 4, 2003 where defendant could have prevented that

9) ruling even on technicalities. He had an ample chance to amend before the                

10) ruling if he wanted to protect Plaintiff's claims and defenses before they were   

11) stricken on untimely, illegal and improper motion. He also had a chance

12) to throw the motion out of court and win by default. Rather, and after the

13) pleading was stricken, he went on his own and withdrew all defenses and

14) counter-claims as if he was dismissing my pleadings on my adversaries

15) behalf so an appeal will be impossible to the case. We all know that in order

16) to file a motion to strike, one has only 10 days to file it. ORCP 21(E). Defendant

17) allowed it after unprecedented 128 days, the longest in litigation history.

18)           9. CONCLUSION

19)      Not only this Honorable Court should deny Defendant motion to dismiss,

20)  but also should be declared UNCONSTITUTIOANL on the grounds that

21) Plaintiff and all citizens of this great country are equally protected by

22) law under one flag and those who are promoting racism should be held liable

23) and responsible for their illegal acts.

24) DATED: Dec. 8, 2003

25)//

26)//                                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

      9- OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S                                        

          MOTION TO DISMISS                     

                                                                                                       Samir Taha/In pro se