ROBERTA KELLY

January 18,20II

Govemor John Kitzhaber

POB 4593 1972081;2236 SE 10rr{ Ave 97214,via hand delivery

Dear Governor John Kitzhaber:

Enclosed copies IUSDC, Portland, Oregon;Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San

Francisco, California (w/o exhibits)]. Please also reference Mr. Henry Makow, a respectable,
Canadian investigative, reporter: FRITZ SPRINGMEYER.

Governor, I do not personally know Fritz Springmeyer. I do know, as you also know
from my hand delivered [filings] papers to your SE Porlland address, our US court system needs
a reboot. The due process in the rule of law, cornerstones to the modem-civllized negotiations in
contracts? Not in my experiences. An industry which clearly does not serve the highest and best
respect for hurnanity. In the 1600s Rembrandt painted the [harvestingJ migrations of pilgrims,
but: .By the I340s the economy was sfficiently robust to survive the bankruptcy of its leacling
bankers, the Bardi and the Peruzzi-the Rothschilds of the Middle Ages-and the Black Death,
which reduced the population of the city by [two-thirds, (2/3)]. (The bankruptcies were not,
apparently, all due to the default of the English king, Edward III, who has usually been
blamed.)t; and,

In2011, in Portland, Oregon, an investigation findependent] into the human commodity

traffic United Nations and International Monetary Fund, decisions via color of law?

Thank you for respecting life, as a medical doctor, too, above digital credits already
traded and exchange in the 1300s.

Sincerely,

Roberta Kelly

I
littp ://www. zum, de/whkmla/sp/0809/christina/christina2.html
Banking developed in Florence because of the ingenious development of bills of exchange, first as a l,vay
of paying debts without having to transport cash, then as a means of evading the church's usuty laws,
and finally as a means of extending credit. Wen the merchant extended his trffic in the exchange
market to enter the credit market, he became a banker-and a capitalist
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q:cache:rCqHONpgnpcJ:www.economist.com/de
crypt/TPQRQSDJ%3FStory_ID%3D81_TPQRQSDJ+florence+credit+capitalism&cd:1&hl:en
&ct:clnk&gl:us.
 Save*,elTlaleS ""

Fritz Springmeier Back in Jail (Updated)

January 15,2011

Political prisoner! Fritz Springmeier has been removed from Oregon

Halfway House in Portland. Fritz is currently being held at the
Inverness Jail. To write to Fritz:

Fritz Springmeier ID: 5O4OO

c/o MCIJ (Inverness Jail)
11540 NE Inverness Dr.
Portland OR 97220
Finally, any phone calls will be collect, and limited to 15 minutes
won't say anything. (5O3-843-4442; Fritz had found a job as a
A friend called but they
telemarketer and was looking forward to regaining his freedom. He was picked up for
"questioning" by the FBI last Wednesday evening. Please write to me if you are interested in
organizing a committee to bring Fritz's case to the United Nations and Amnesty International,
as well as the Government of China, as an example of political persecution in the US.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

(Jan 1,2O11)

In 2OO3, Illuminati researcher Fritz Springmeier was sentenced to 111 months in prison on the basis
of no evidence. His experience suggests that at any time the Illuminati can put away anyone who irritates
them.

Springmeier was convicted because a bank robber, Forrest E. Bateman Jr. testified that Springmeier
visited his house on the same day as Bateman discussed the robbery with two accomplices,

Bateman received a reduced sentence for this testimony. He did not say he had discussed the robbery
with Springmeier.
Bateman was turned in by his friend and accomplice Tony Huntington. Huntingtor"r also implicated
Springmeier and received no sentence for the bank robbery. Over 120 years of prison time for drugs and
guns were also forgiven. Pretty good incentive to lie?

At Springmeier's trial and appeal, James A. Redden (http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/James A. Redden), the

sentencing judge, kept repeating -- "circumstantial evidence can be used to prove anything."

Indeed, Springmeier's case is in the law books as an example of the low standard of evidence needed to
convict someone, Ann J Brown, the first Federal Judge to hear the case, had said, "There is no evidence
against this man."

Springmeier received an extra five years because a firearm was used in the robbery.

Forrest Bateman fired a rifle into the ceiling to get everyone's attention when he and two accomplices
robbed $6000 from the Key Bank in the Portland suburb of Damascus Oct 6,1997.

Ten minutes prior to the robbery, a "bomb" exploded at the Fantasy Adult Video Store, located six
miles west of the bank. No one was injured in the explosion but police investigators believe that the
bomb was set off as a diversionary tactic.

I of 2 111812011 I 1:27 AM
 The "bomb" was a propane tank. Springmeier was nowhere near either event and had no prior knowledge
of eithen' At the time he was working at a print shop in Eagle Creek, 10 miles SE" F.lowever the proprietor
refused to provide an alibi because Fritz had offended him by criticizing Billy Graham.

The point is that Fritz served seven years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was sold out by his
lawyer, Pat Birmingham, who, when given a copy of "Bloodlines of the Itluminafi"exclaimed, "Am I in
this?"

There was no evidence connecting Fritz to this crime. Yes, he knew Bateman (from a Bible Studies class,
of all things) but there was no evidence he knew about the crime. Bateman and his accomplices got
reduced sentences for implicating Springmeier,

These days, if you're an Illuminati researcher in the US, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Last october, Fritz was released to a halfway house in portland.

In order to regain his freedom, he needs to find approved employment and accommodation.

Until then, this gifted opponent of the New World Order is in a guilded cage, unable to leave the premises
except on job expeditions. He needs to find a job within a 100 miles radius of Portland. If you can help,
write to him at springmeiermessages@hotmail.com

hmakow@gmail.com

Henry N4akow G) 2009

2 of 2 1/18/2011 ll:21 AM
 t0-3614
LNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTA KELLY Pro Se, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. U.S.BANK; BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL P.S., a Washington

pro fessional services comp any; KRISTA WHITE, D efendants-Appellees,
v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL AS SOCIATION, Third-party-plaintiff, Appellee,
v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONiC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., an inactive Oregon corporation; CREDIT
CARD RECEIVABLES FLIND INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation;
ZB LiMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00421-AC I Oregon I Portland

PRO SE PLAI]VTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO, MOLLY C. DWER, CLERK OF COURT, RE..

SECOND FILING, RE: DOCKET [288J; AFFIDAVIT; AND, MOTIONS TO
THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO INTERVE,
1 0-36144, 3 :08-cv-0042 1 -AC AND 3 :09-cv-01 1 25-KI, 1 0-361 1 1

REQUEST EXPERT COUNSEL TO BE ASSIGNED, etcetera *

IPLEASE ALSO REFERENCEJ DECLARATION OF COUNSEL-APPOINTMENT IN
I]{TER]VATIONAL AND U.S. CONSTITUTION LAW, SEE AFFIDAVIT, IN REPRESENTATION OF
THE COMPLEXITY, IMPLOKING CONSIDEMTION AND ORAL ARGUMENTS, TOO, TO HONOR
OUR RULE OF LAW IJURY TRIALS WOULD SERVE BEST, PAST.PRESENT-FUTUREJ,

The Appeals' Ninth Circuit Courl, and USDC, Portland-Oregon, PACER/ECF: Notice of
Electronic Filing(s), [fWO, (2)J : transactions entered on 1/18/20] I at 9: I5 AM PST IDKT 29IJ ; and

9.33 AM PST IDKT 292J, w/Exhibit(s). Transactionsfiled on 1/18/20] l, Case Name: Kelly et al v.

U.S. Bank et al, Case Number: 3:08-cv-01421-AC, Filer: Roberta Kelly, WARNING; CASE CLOSED

on 1 2/09/2010, Document 291, Docket Text: Affidavit of Roberta Kelly and Request for Expert

Counsel. Filed by Roberta Kelly. (mr); and Document 292, Docket Text: Second Filing re Docket

[2BB] and Motion to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Recluest Expert Counsel to be Assigned. Filed by

1 - JanuaTy 18,2011, MOTION TO, MOLLY C. DWER, CLERK OF COURT, RE.. SECOND FILING, RE.' DOCKET
[2BB], AFFIDAVIT,. AND, MOTIONS TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO INTERVENE,
lt0-36144.3.08-cv-00421-ACAND3;09-cv-01125-KI, l0-36llll; REQUESTEXPERTCOUNSELTOBEASSIGNED,
etcetera - IPLEASE ALSO REFERENCEJ DECLARATION OF COUNSEL-APPOINTMENT IN INTERNAT]OIVAL AND
U.S. CONSTITUTTOIV LAW, SEE AFFIDAVIT,IN REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPLEXITY,IMPLORING
CONSIDERATION AND ORAL ARGUMENTS, TOO, TO HONOR OUR RULE OF LAW [JURY TRIALS WOULD SERI/E
BEST,PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE], ]
Roberta Kelly. (Attachments: # (l) Exhibit) (mr) .

Therefore, please accept all electronic DOCKETS [291, 292) and also [ink(s), etcl in lieu of

multiples of copies. The YOUTUBE account is a private setting, for the Courls' personal review. The

outer unit is missing fsee white Toyota and building in rear] in the three 13] due process submissions,

here below. That outer unit which did not have any footage film, since the pain of its demise was too

much at this time, to be submitted in a separate filing.

The word, past, intentionally used, when also apropos, passed beginning around the 1980s, the

financial powers allowed greater passes on crime or so it appears an agenda was passed without the full

consent of a Republic. Passing and cultivating the consumption, wealth. Fraudulent inducement and

transference, intemationally, no less than a century? Straw men conduits and an agenda mightier than

before, globalism. Or, a global terror war reaping unjust foftunes to those who can be named, easily in

the past, present and cerlainly our future Twenty-first Century of elegant technology.

ILEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLYJ

Thank you for time, energy, and The Rule of Law - in Due Process, the most modem form of

intelligent understanding to honor contracts in exchanging and trading, equally.

Respectfully dated this 18rH day of Janu ary, 2011,

Roberta Kelly, Plaintiff Pro Se-Appellant

2 - January 18,2011, MOTION TO, MOLLY C. DWER, CLERK OF COURT, RE SECOND FILING, RE: DOCKET
[288J.' AFFTDAVIT,. AND, MOTIONS TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO INTERVENE,
l0-361111:REQUESTEXPERTCOUNSELTOBEASSIGNED,
ll0-36144.3;08-cv-00421-ACAND3:09-cv-01125-KI,
etcetera - IPLEASE ALSO REFERENCEJ DECLARATION OF COUNSEL-APPOINTMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AND
U.S. CONSTITI]TION LAW, SEE AFFIDAVIT, IN REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPLEXITY,IMPLORING
C)NSIDERATION AND ORAL ARGUMENTS, TOO, TO HONOR OUR RULE OF LAW IJURY TRTALS WOULD SERVE
B EST, PAST.PRESENT-FUTUREJ, t
 Roberta Kelly, Pro Se Plaintiff lAppellantl
roberta(@rnortgageqaleria.com
5109 NE Ainsworth Street
Portland, OR 91 218-1826
{'i::;r;,:"* ..
Telephone: 503 -849.4634 '{ t ! .t

't' _ i.,i.rir:l&*ij,t*
-l" *Ii*ir.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Roberta Kelly, Case No. 3:08-cv-00 421-AC

Plaintiff lAppellantl, SECOND FILING, RE: DOCKET [288]; AND,

v. MOTION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COIIRT
OF APPEALS, REQIIEST EXPERT COLINSEL
U.S. BANK, BISHOP, WHITE & TO BE ASSIGNED, etcetera
MARSHALL, P.S., a Washington |tu36144.| TNTERVENE h 0-361 1 d
professionai services company;KRISTA IAFFIDAVIT]
WHITE,

Defendants fAppellees],

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Third-p arty-plaintiff - Appellee,

CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, fNC., an inactive Oregon corporation;
CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES FLIND
INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation; ZB
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited
parlnership,

Third-p arty- defendant.

Notice of Electronic Filing: The following transaction was entered on I /4/201 I at I I :31 AM pST anct

1 - JANuATy 18, 2OII, SECOND FILING, RE: DOCKFT [288]; MOTION TO APPEALS 9TH CIRCUIT, REQUEST
EXPERTCotII{SELToBEASSIGNED,elcetera;errrnevrr1
filed on I/4/2011, Case Name, Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al, Case Number, 3:08-cv-01421-AC, Docket
Number 288, Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Acosta - DEFERfuING a ruling on plaintiff Kelly's
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal(#281) pending Ms. Kelly's filling out ond
returning for this court's review a "Form 4" financial ffidavit in accordance with FRAP 24(a)(3). The
form will be mailed to plaintiffKelly with this order. (peg)

Plaintiff Pro-Se-Appellant, Roberta Kelly, cannot find the Form 4,whichwas mailed and

retrieved: 5109 N.E. Ainsworth Street, Portland, Oregon 97218. Pro-Se Plaintiff Kellyhereby,

therefore, requests Federal Magistrate John V. Acosta, and Federal Judges Ann L. Aiken and Michael

W. Mosman to please resend Form 4. Thank you.

Plaintiff Kelly chooses to comply with the Court's Order, in total.

United States District Court Judges for the District of Oregon, Division of Portland: Acosta,

Aiken and Mosman, please find IAFFIDAVIT] addressing jurisdiction, questions arising in and from

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for compliance purposes in the filings.

And, YOUTUBE DUE PROCESS, P.E: PAUPER FORM, etc.

ILEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

documenting abandonment invites robbery, and sail fails during real estate property market global

terrorists' billionaire and trillionaire investments, a housing bubble tsunami intentionally straw men for

a global one world government? Preference is art, beauty, balance, peace, love, and other enlightening

choices in being human, quite frankly, John Y. Acosta, et al.

Meaning no disrespect to the digital investments, the system of 'Juridical loopholes," the

court's length in time for law and so on.

Banking. The Court has permission to contact the following for information pertaining to

anylall bank accounts'. Mr. Ronald A. Wysaske, President and COO, 900 Washington Street, Suite

900, Vancouver, WA 98660, Tel: 360.693-6650, phylliskreibich@riverviewbank.com. Due to the

January 18, 2011, SECOND FILING, RE; DOCKET [288];MOTION TO APPEALS 9rH CIRCUIT, REQUEST
EXPERTCotINSELToBEASSIGNED,etcetera[errnevlr]
 anylall bank accounts'. Mr. Ronald A. Wysaske, President and COO, 900 Washington Street,
Suite

900, Vancouver, WA 98660, Tel: 360.693-6650,phvlliskreibich@riveniiewbank.com. Due to the

censorship imposed by the Court femailing, etcetera], Plaintiff Roberla Kelly's signature on the filed

documents herein, provide to the Court llegal sigrtuture proofl for all Roberla Kelly's accounts at

Riverview Community Bank [The members of Rivewiew Community Bank's Audit Committee are:

Gary R. Douglass, Chairman; Jerry C. lson; Paul Runyan]. [The directors can be reached as follows:

Gary R. Douglass: (360) 994-7055; Jerry C. Olson: (360) 695-1385; Paul L. Rynyan: (360) 834-3772.1

USAA, can be contacted and verify any and all accounts, connected to Roberta Kelly. Plaintiff

was and continues in, an American faccording to the definition of the administration which followed

through in declaring wars absent Congressional approval], terrorist attack? According to our U.S.

Constitution?

I, Roberla Kelly, Pro-Se Plaintiff-Appellant, believe I AM protected under-by-in-through-with-

and-no-exceptions, our Ten Amendments to our Bill of Rights, and The U.S. Constitution.

However, years have past while The Rule Of Law in the United States, appears to be other than

what Americans' believe. Please reference, once again, formerly practicing prosecutor for the State of

Oregon, in the City of Porlland and County of Multnomah - D. Lawrence Olstad lco-plctintiff Kettyl -
2009 filings in the Court. Due process of lawful documents to foreclose, U.S. Bank, et ctl., exposed a

twenty (20) year old archived file from The Oregon State Bar, rather than produce.

Regarding that courl experience, in honor of our American dream, Kelly quotes fsamuel

Beckett's final words about his plays, in 1957, at San Quentin in particularl: An (Jnnecessaty Stain On

Silence And Nothingness. Further, Plaintiff Roberta Kelly's First Amendment protection, referencing

ICOPY] of the letter (three [3] pages) dated August 18, 2009.

3- January 18,2011, SECOND FILING, RE: DOCKtrT [288];MOTION TO AIPEALS 9rH CIRCUIT, REeUEST
EXPERTCou{SELToBEASSIGNED,etcetera[enrioevn]
the letter (one ill page) with MEMORANDUM OF LAW OZnOSING DEFENDANT,,S MOTION

TO PROHIBIT DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS FROM PLAINTIFFS (fourteen

[14] pages)

lcoPYl.

Respectfully submitted the 18rH day of January,20II.

Roberta Kelly, Plaintiff Pro Se - Appellant

4 - JanuaTy 18,201I, SECOND FILING, RE:DOCKET [28S];MOTION TO APPEALS gTH CIRCUIT, REQUEST
EXPERTCot]NSELToBEASSIGNED,etcetera[eErioavtr]
 Roberta Keily
5109 NE Ainsworth St.
Portland, Oregon 97218

August 1tj, 2009

John V Acosta, Federal Magistrate
Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse
1000 S.W. Third Avenue
Portland, OR 97 ZA4-2902

Dear JLrdge Acosta.

You did not order me to not write to you ancl therefore, this letter

Regarding the Scheduling Conference August 18,2009, please find myclarificatjon attached.
according to
what I believe to be a whole record in response to Ms. Eckert's typical retort. Thank you for providing
my
siatenrent to The Cor-rrt Reporter.

The rest of this letter is personal. And, first, I must tell you how delighted I am to have appeared oro se in
America. I lrave up untii this accidental ihrowing me into the briar patch. been unable to'even speak just
one or two words let alone string a few sentences together before THE GODS. Finally,I have been
allowed to be anrrnated, wowl

Atrd you. Sir, dic indeed let me know you are GOD over me. I am well aware of the patriot Acl and what it
can do to nre Your Honor, as you must be able to lell. I am also aware after the Scheduling Conference
hearing (and the rea$on I took the poetic license that, I have) ... you have more power ovei me than I

lrave over rny own life. This uras not my first experience, however, with the mistaken in identity.

Tlrts has been the most important lesson I have learned as a human being: Juclge not lest thee be
judged.

J"i"ie revoitili,):r3r^!'spproaoit Liave taKen was purput(.rfui :no carefully thoughi out with fuil rntentroil. lv'iyz,
husband Larrv Olstad had no idea whatsoever what I was doing all orr my own, without any lawyer telling
rne wlrai to cio. I r-reeded to know what I now know.

Speaking of humans. I do hope you are looking very closely at ou[ species as the multinational
I

transnatjonal Monsanto spreads its unregulated bioengineerecl products for consumption: those who calj . ,.
themselves people after more than twenty {20) years of beirrg fed poisons and plastics I can only HOpE '
-
the sentierrt rnust wonder just what in the world is going on when these so called organic forms look nrore
like scarecrow hair and a taxidermy Michael Jackson wannabe look-alike. Brains and almost all internal
orqans are shrunken. Look at the windows of the soul (e yes) are almost disappeared

George W. Br-ish lost the global war on terrorism, but the courts have not accepted this and the power they
have been given now over the U.S. Constitution is just too delicious to allow the force of lit|e gods to
accept equality in the earth. I stood in your courtroom today to feel as your equal and not to appear before
you as your slave. You made certain I know my place anri it is anything but equal. I get it, Your Honor,
but I already did lvhen an Officer af the Peace can enter nry home and attempt murder for his employers
who give hlm full impunity and with immunity, too, he said so on the witness stand. ln other words, to do
evil deeclsin/\mericaisgor:dbecauseitpays-ancl itisthe2'1 '' CenturyforChrist'ssakel You
understand, Freedom Child: the Vair Dire you were Jucige over, was all yours'to be THE GOD of and
what a GOD were and are, indeed over a poor defenseless child of rrature. I was upset about how much
money the attorney went for, thinking it is the taxpayer who gets fleeced anci then I discovered the whole
sordid truth .. DIGITS (Ms. Eckert finally got it rightl) ... digits, as you know are what pays anyiall
''insurance" for those who do the cleeds
of globalism.

The statements urhtch I find offensive irr court are about time and other such notions of feelings i:eing hurt.
I nrust lell you John V. Acosta. Federal Magistrate;

feelings are what human beings count on to guide us in choosing more sanely. lrelieve it or not
Your Honor, we think with the heart and feel with the head or else we are srmply biuoberirrg piles of
proioplasm as organic forms wandering around in our non-vjrtue trying to find our good virlue.

l - l,ctter to F edertl \l agistrate ,lohn V. .{costa i R[i: CV 01421 -AC l Augusr 18. 2009 'oHearing'.
 Thus, I write this letter to sa, ,at warning me about offending the oppos, ,, or pulling iiger's whiskers of
those who are colleagues in Poriland in the "legal profession'; (sorry, but this is an oxymoion in the U.S.
because the lawless rule unfortunately as you know being a multinational attorney) and also, most
especially, stepping on the tail of the tigers - THE GODS of Court/s, is not going io prevent me from being
a hunran wlth feelings and in this time of terrorism by and through those who pretenO to be our
gatekeepers, to be told to sit down and shut up about ii only brings me to my knees to pray for my mortal
coil to shed so I do not have to live one nano-second with the miscreants in the twilight zone. But, thank
you for the warning anyway.

Time tryas once upon a time a most valuable element to me, now it is a death sentence because I cannot
find one reason to stay around on a death planet.

Therefore, whv not emails and furthermore how about an easy course on-line for the pro se litigant. One
sintple exercise would do in how to file electronically so we can all be empowered and fulfill the saying of,
Do it yottrself and take the burden off God. ln other i,rords, we are all gods, Sir, it is just some do noi need
the Patriot Act to believe this in our body-mind-spirit.

My faiher was military and ClA. I can be the best huriran soldier any government interested in non-
imaginative can imagine. The problem is, it is inhuman and eventually the denial of my birthright to be
treated as an equal in the world of humans gets the better of me. And also, I did not come to earth to be a
robot for global powers who lost their souls a long-long, long time ago when the first mass murdering oi
humans, cannibalizatlon of our own species was sold as the ongoing brand: wAR.

I am a whole brained hutnan and when I can see the whole problem which everyone else also kr.rows is
occurring and intelligence ts supposedly an attribute of highly well educated people, but the actions are
those of not only illiterate in the 21't Century (afraid of the internei, conspiracy BS allegations, etc.), our
trme reliance upon balance and sanity is limited.

To think of living in th js world where a Federal Judge has more power over me than God, is indeed a sad
day. but shocked? Oh, that awe was a long time ago now and I do wish all the sickest of our species
ta'rould lust get the damn game over and stop torturing all We The People for the blood sport of The Patriot

Don't worry about me being a wacko, all artists are and thank heavens because they leave a record of
how it truly was i is: http:l/www.artchive.com/oova.htr_nl I Take your time at this site, we all need to
remember how the artists have warned us about this since the beginning of time (The Black Paintings
front the Quita del sordo).

Before you be da'GOD of telling me no-mo letter/s, I lrave already decided to be my own god (healthy
shame keeps us from thinking we are THE GOD), and I have no more letters to write, no more emails to
send either since this says about all I can which I do believe is a waste of my time, But, I can at least say I

rvas able to write to GOD and say how tragic I see the life we have chosen for ourselves as digital
consumers of artlficiality - inhuman and therefore we are all slaves to the idea of victim and we are not
true gods with freedom in the 21't Century and this is a SHAME on the whole GOD of the universe. This
GRAND SHAME, especially BRANDS those who have been international and pushing the multinational I

transnational agenda of THE one world government at the expense of individual, independent, creative
genius and therefore we have lost our human nature as children of the universe.

Wandering organic forms of incredible energy with far less than 7o/o of our brain power, due to detonating
atonlicweaponsrepeatedlysincel965,onourownsoii. Thisisahighcrime,thinkofwhatwecouldhave
done in our lifetime alone with a whole braini I have been measured in many a test since I was only six
years old, to use far above the ten percent attributed to "genius," by the way ... but, this is not a value in
America because I think too freely and GOD FORBID, I am also an artist, not a "Monarch Slave."

li4ay you live a life filled with spiritual consciousness and therefore, overflowing with the passion of feeling
wholly human - thus, becoming a cosmic citizen of the universe which is far more SUBTLE GOD, than the
artificiality of just a globalist turning earth into a death planet through the criminal insanity of profiteering by
cannibalizing our own species - especially in this 21urC-91turV.
.-N

The Court's humble servant, Roberta Kelly .)"

.,t',
:i..!",.11j
,,1

2-LettertoFeclerall.IagistrateJohn\,'.Acosta REr GV01421-AClAugust18,2009,,Hcaring"

RE: CASE No. CV O1421-AC Ms. Eckert once again made the stipulation in The Coufi on
August 18, 2009, that I was given a loarr by U.S. Bancorp, and then got behind on the paymexrs.
This is again her opinion. but my opinion was I is and can be proven to be: i was fraudulently
irrduced with computerized ke-vboard digits in exchange for real money and then I provided a
number which is so secret it carmot be disclosed, derivatives (expanded exponential keystroke
computer digits) to mmufacture subprime loans so the global banking system could take its
western hemisphere transnational system into the entire eastern hemisphere. This forced my
n'ealth to be transfered to global investors and, therefore, I have suffered insunnountable losses
financially and furthennore, deaths have occuned in this time of "globalism" without one iota of
concen'r for the Amerjcan taxpaying or call us ccnsuming, citizens.
 D.I.AWRENCT OTSTAD
P.0.Box2744
Porflond,0regon 97208
Telephone: 503-849-4635
emill I arr tt @ g!! I lo w s ktt.n et

August Z:,Zlag

The Honorable Jobn V. Acosta

l-Jnited States District Court
1000 S.W, Third Avenue, Suite 1127
Porlland. OP.97204

RE: KellyiOlstad v. US Bank, Court Case No. CV-08-1421-AC

Dear Judge Acosta:

I received an emailed copy of the court's order, dated today, restricting rny co-plaintiff's
communications rvith the cor-rt. I was puzzled by this sentence:

Accordingly. it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffRoberta Kelly shall not communicate

directly r.vith the court about the merits of this case, or about any matter unrelated to the
case, by email^ typed or rvritten correspondence, or in other fashion.

Does the court intend this order to restrict the filing of pleadings and/or motions? I ask
because the rvording of tlre order may be read that way, but I doubt that the courl intended that
elfect.

A reply by email is nry preference if that is convenient for the court, and thank you in
advance.

Sincerely,

C@PY
D. Lawrence Olstad

cc: C. Ir{arie Eckert

David A. Weibel
.leanne K. Sinnott
Robefia KelIy -,"r
 D. Lau,rence Olstad, pro Se
la rrv(n) rvi L1 o rvskv. net

Roberta Kelly, Pro Se

trll.eii a ili,rnolt glr{cua l.- r.i ;r. t o ttr

5l 09 NE Ainsu'orth street
Portland, OR 97218- 1826
Telephone: -s03-926-B595
eFax:503-296-5762

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGOI\

ROBERTA KELLY & No.CV-08-14Z|,AC

D. LAWRENCE OLSTAD
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSING
Piaintiffs, DEFEN'DANT'S vlorroN To pRoHIBtr DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PLAINTIFFS
V.
US BANK, BISHOP, WHITE and
MARSI-IALL, P.S. a Washington
Plofessjonal Seruices Company and
KRISTA WIfITE,

Defendants.
I. Introduction
Plainiiff Kelly has r'vritten a number of letters to US Bank's "principals," including its

CEO and its in-house attomeys. The lettels touch on matters involved in this litigation, but

primarily address Ms. Kelly's vierr,, of defendant US Bank's behavior in the marketplace in

general or relel to US Bank's actions in matters not invoived in this action. Letters sr-rch as

Erhibit 3 to Miller Nash's Motion complain of actions taken by US Bank in another matter

entire ly.

Page I - lVlentorandunt Oppo-ring Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Direct Comntwticalions

 Miller-Nash seeks an order frorn thc court "precluding plaintiffs from contacting U.S.

Bank persormel and requiring plaintifls to communicate with U.S, Bank solely through its

otttside connsel." Despite limiting language in the supporting Memorandurn,' this motion is not

limited to communications respecting this case: US Bank seeks "to preclude plaintiffs 1i'orn

contacting U.S. Bank directly and requiring plaintiffs to direct ali communication to U.S. Banli's

outside counsel, Milier Nash I-LP." Miller Nash subrnitted nothing from US Bank to support its

allegations.

First, this court has scant authorit;' (and probably less inclination) to proscribe plaintifl's'

communicalions r.vith US Bank on matters not before the court, and, most especially, on natters

ofgeneral public concern, and the defense has cited to no identifiable source ofsuch authority.

Plaintiff Kelly's right to send US Banlc's CEO letters addressing mattors of general pubhc

conceln regarding tire bank's actions, or to stand on a soapbox in the public square and read them

aioud for that matter, is protected from govenrment interference by the First Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States. Of course, she is subject to potential liability for defamation

and, in appropriate circumstcutces, to injunctivc relief.

But neither plaintiff implicitly submitted to a r.r,holesale political gagging when defendant

removed this case to federal court and plaintiffs did not just fold their tent and slink arvay. And

so it is troubling that the court u'as inclined to grant US Bank's lvfotion with little or no concenl

for the Constitutional implications.

Furthermore. none of the cases cited by defendants in their Memorandum corne evcn

close to supporting the order N{iller Nash seeks from the court.

|
"[C]ounsel for U.S. Bank has repeatedly reqtiested that plaintiffs direct all
communication regarding this case to U.S. Bank's outside counsel

Page 2 - Ilfenrorandunt Opposing De/endant's \v{otion to Prohibit Direct Communications

 Second, while attorneys are prohibited from cornmunicating r,vith represented parties

advctse lo their respective clients (except to indicate that they should seek counsel), no
such bar

exists to inter-client cotnurunication - at least defendants could cite to none and plaintiffs'

research has not unearthed one. Moreover, the reason for the rule prohibiting attorneys fron-r

undertaking such commtnications - the danger of unfair advantage - are inapplicable to

communicatjons betrveen represented clients.

Third, if plaintiffKelly's communications to the bank are that offensive, tftere are

retnedies tlie bank may seek u,hich do not mn roughshoci over plaintiffs' rights to free speech and

clue process ollaw. This cor-ut's discretion is not unlimited. Mattel, Inc. v. 99 Cents On.l.v

Stores.8i Fed.Appx. 94 (9'h Cir. 2007).

Fourth, the Motion seeks to bar cornmunications to US Bank from "plaintiff.s," althouglr

no instatrces of oflending conrmunications from plaintiff OIstad have been alleged. Nonetheless,

defendants seek an order barring plaintiff Olstad fi'om communicating rvith "US Bank personnel"

- presurnably, any US Bank personnel, and apparently on any matter whatsoever.

It is highly uniikely that the court has the power to do that. No allaged1y damaging

commnuications authored by plaintiff Olstad are in evidence, and r.vhat if plaintiff Olstad has

business -"r.'ith U S Rank other than that rvhich is the subject of this case? There is nothing in

def'endants' presentation to indicate that ) no such business exists or,2) if it does, Miller Nash
represents US Bank respccting that business. And some evidence on those points should be

required of thc proponcnt of a rule as far-reaching as the one proposed here.

Evc:n in conlection with this case. platntiff Olstad "corrmunicates" with US Bank

persorurel every month - at the express directiort o.f Ms. Er:kerl, plaintiff Olstacl sends an

envelope, oltce everv ntonth, r,vitir an enclosed check, addressed to US Bancorp Consurner

Page 3 - l':[emorant{um Opposing Defendant's ll.[otion to Prohibit Direct Communication,s

 Finance, ATTN: Travell Hendershot,205 w 4'h st., ste. 500, cN-oH_xsFl, cincirurati, oH

452A2. See Exhibir 2.

That is certainly a communication. Does Miller Nash mean, by this Motion, to interclict

those pavments? It would seem so.

The baiik seeks to lead this court into elror - it seeks a "SLAPP"2 order against plaintiffs

without the foundationai fihng of factual allegations or authorities even remotely supporting any

sucir ordcr.

II. Cases Cited by Dcfendants

Medical sttppfi, chain, Inc. v. Ncofornta, Lnc.,322 Fed.Appx. 630 (10'h cir. 2009) r.vas

a case irrvolvingfiling restricti.ons. as \4ras the Sieverdir?g case on which it rests, after a long,

involved and convoluted procedural battle in the District Court. Neither case can, by any device,

be stretched to stand for the proposition that the court has power to impose general, overall

restraints on litigants talking to each other. Where did defendants seek the "carefully tailorecl

lestrictions" to ivhich the Court of Appeais referred?

Sieverding invoived an order by the District Cor-u1 that prohibited filing of any pro se

action by that plaintiff in an1'court without District Court's approval. In that way, it i.r,as much

like the order defendant seeks from this court. The District Court was reversed:

Finally, '"r,e conclude that the district coult's decision to restrict Ms. Sieverding's
lilings on allv subject tnatter and as to any defendant is overbroad. The district corul's
lvlarrch 2004 filing restrictions order wzrs properly limited by sLrbject matter ancl defendant
because ii prohibited filings based on the series of transactions described in that initial
lederal action, case number 02-cv-l950. Given Ms. Sieverding's continued f,rlings aitcr
tltat restriction was e11tered. the district court was justified in expanding the scope of the
filing restrictions, but there is no apparent basis 1'or extending the restriction to include

t A "StApP" is a lar,vsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening

them lvith the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticisrn or opposition.

Page 4 - fuIernorandLtm Opposing Dcfentlanl's.tr4otion to Prohibit Direct Comnrunications

 anli subject t-uatter ancl any party.

Plaintiff also notes that t),{edicul Sqtpty Clhain yvas unpublished ancl exprcsslvl macle

subject to I 0'r' Clircuit Rr_rle 3?.1, n hich provicles in part:

iA) Prccedential va1uc. The citation of unpublishcd clecisior-rs is pernrittccl to the full
cxtent of thc authority for"rnd in Fed. It. App. P. 32.1. Linpublished clecisions are rror
pre cedcntial. but may be citcd jbr their persuasivc vzrlr.re. fhel, may also bc citcci
uncler
lhc doctrincs of larv of-the case, clairrr prc-clusion. ancl issrrc preclusion. Citation to
r-rnpr-rbiishecl opinions must include an appropriateparent.hetical notation, E.g., Ltrtitccl
Statesr. l|'ilsott, r'\o, 06-2047,2006 wL3072766 (l()rh Crr. oct. 31,2006)(unpublishecl);
Linited ,9tcues t,. Keehle,No. 05-5190, lB4 Fed. Appx. 756. 2006 U.S. App. L}:-XIS
1487I . ( l0th Cir, Junc I 5, 2006)(unpr"rblished). (Emphasis aclcled).

tJS Bank chr:se to ignorc= lhat nllc and to ncglect to share tvith the court. or witlr

plaintiff.s, the information that its first prececlcnt was, b), rule. of no precedential vah"ic.

Ccrtainl.v tltc court lras broad discretion ro control thc parties in their interaclions y.,itlt the

coLtrl and lheir actiotrs in the pressing ol; or defending ngainst, claims. And thai is rvhat all the

cascs citcd b.v the dclense address. The k{c:O'eud1, casc, aiso cited bv the def'ense, had to clti rvith

a liligant rvho "abuscd thc juclicial process rvjrh irivolous lirigation."

Jvls. Eckert has apparcntly firrgotten r,vho brought us to lbdcral court in tire first place .

And if thc allcgatiorrs of tlic instant compla.int are fi'ivoltrus. r.r,hy u,ere rhcy not challcngcd as

suclt bt, nrotion?

-lhe
cases cited by the clei'ense arcr thus iimite d to their circumstances ancl provide no

support lbr ihe ilrgun"lent that the court's discretion ertcnds as far as LIS Bank prctencls it cloes in

the circutttstances ol'this case. 'lhis is no1 a tnarter that elfects the court's control of its docl<ctt

t Sce, e.g.. .1dam,t v. Culilbrniu Depr o-f Health Services.487 F.3d 684 (9'r'C;ir. 2007)

Page 5 - L'lenusrctrtrlum Oppositrg Defbntlunt',s Motion to Prohibit Dirett Communic.aii,rttts

 or 1ts case lnanagement authoritys or arguments to be made to juryu or the appiicability
a of
dcrt'enses or in-court use of terms' or an award of attorney"s feess - in fact, piaintiffs' research

reveals no casc, stalute or ntle in this circuit extending the triai court's authority as far as

defendants rvould har.'e it, ar:d the bank has cited us to llone.

\4oreover, the follor,ving misrepresentations of fact appeared in the defense

IV{emorandurn:

During the tirne in which the case has been pending, plaintifis (particularly IVIs.
Kelly), have repeatedly sent harassing and vitriolic e-mails and letters to U.S. Balk
personnel, most recently to Richard Davis, U.S. Bank's chief executive officer, Lee
N4itar.r, U.S. Banl<'s general counsel, and Gail Van Horn, corporate counsel, accusing U.S.
Bank of "financial terrorisrn," fi'aud, concealment of fraud, and various otirer
u,rongdoing.e

And again:

Plaintiffs have sent a number of harassing and vitriolic e-mail and letters to
persomrel and executives at U.S. Ban-k, despite requests by U.S. Bank's counsel that
piaintifTs communicate with U.S. Bank solely tl-rrough counsel,r0

Although she singles out I\4s. Kelly, Ms. Eckerl has ciearly alleged as fact, not once but

trvice, that "plaintiffs" have "repeatedly" sent offensive emails to US Bank's principals, She

cloes not, hor,vever, state lvhat "repeatedly" or "numerolls" meails. Moreover, she cannot produce

' See, e.g., tr{/ong v. Regents oJ'Universitl,of Cctliforniu,4T0 F.3d 1052 (2005)

o See, e.g., Finkv. Ylst.198 Fed.Appx.

587 (9'h Cir. 2006)

' See, e.g., Zal v. Steppe, 96B F.2d 924 (9,1 Cir.1992).

' See, e.g.. M.L. t,. Federal l4/ay School Di,st.,3Bi F.3d 1 101 (2004)
e N{emorandr-rrn ln Support
of Motion to Require Plaintiffs to Comrnunicate *'ith LJ.S
Bank Through Cor-rnsel, p. 2.

'o Ibid,
Page 6 - Memorqndttm Opposing Defendant's Mcttion to Prohibit Di.rect Communications
 or.re lettil authored by plaintiff Olstad.rr What, then, is her justification for asking for both

plaintiffs to be restrained?

\4"hy, it must be that these August, cloistered ancl protected individuals do not wish to be

adclressed in this fashion - they apparently thrnk they are above it!

It should not be necessary/ to argue that the courts are not constituted to assuage the hurt

i'celings of sotne self-appointed aristocracy. It probably hurt Bernie Madoff s feelings to be

exposed for the blatant thief iie clearly was, as well.

And it is not as if Ms. Kelly's accusations arenottrue; rhe financial terrorism, fraud,

conce alment of fiaud and various other rvrongdoings by the gamblers in the securitizecl mortgage

and derivatives markets - in which defendant US Bank u,as (and probably still is) an eager.

voluntary participant - are widely documented in the nation's newspapers, its financial press and

irr Congressional [reariugs.

Finally, thc communications at issuc herc are not case consequential at all, contrary to

Ivls. Eckeft's tratrsparently false assertion that "[t]he correspondence has been disruptive, caused

confusion over the number and existence of cornmunications fiorn plaintiffs to U.S. Bank

regarding this civil actiot.l, and unnecessarily increased the costs of this litigation."

N4emorandum, pp. 2-3.

What nonsense! What has been disrupted and rvho is confused? And how does the cost

of litigation decrease if Ms. Kelly is pemritted ro send her vituperative letrers only to N{iller

Nash'l If their concern is contiuuity, she r.vill be happy to send them a courtesy copy of

everything.

" Although it is possible that plaintilf Olstad signed one or two of the earlier letters
and/or Qualified Written Requests.

Page 7 - Metnorandtnn Opposittg DeJbndant's lvfotion to Prohibit Direct Cortmunicatiort,s

 Does lvls. E'ckert aclually expect this corrt to believe that US
Bank is so unaccllstomed to

receiving corespondence that it had no systems set up for dealing with

it prior to thc time Ms.

Keliy began to r'vrite? Grven the key part still played by the banks in the nation,s
ongoipg

economic cloldrums, the Banl< likely gets rnaii every day lhatwould rnake
Ms. Kelly's seen mild

by comparison, and if it doesn,t it sirould.

This is one of the largest banks in the country and a member bank in the Federaj Reserve

National Bank system, and yet Ms. Eckert wants this court to believe that it is just completelv

flummoxed by the paltry few letters sent by Ms. Kelly. This court shouid demand, ar a

tninitrlum' a statement of actual facts, signed ancl sworn to, before it even contemplates takilg
an

action as radical as thc one sought afler by the defense Motion.

The only real signiticance for the case before the couri at present which these letters can

possibl-v irave is if Ms. Kelly's letters conlain statements against her ilterest, ancl it is difficult to
conpreheud tire reason US Bank would complain about that.

This entire exercise is an apparent attcmpt to divert the court's attention arvay from the

t-act that N4ilier Nash did not comply with the court's prior production order, r.vhich Ms. Eckert

pretenciecl nol to understand despite thorough note taking by Ms. Simott ancl Ms, pearson - the

second al the cotut's direction - during the hearing at rvhich procluction rvas ordered, and d,espite

thc thoroughness of thc detail in which thc required plocluction rvas described at tirat hearing.

III. Nothing Directly From the Bank

Tlie complete lack of any evidence directly from US Bank suppofting this Motion shor-rld

also be fatal to the Motion. The court has no factual basis for granting tlre relief sought excepr

bald assertions frot't-t Ms. Eckert, which shor-rid notbe taken at face valuebecause l) Ms. Eckert,s
Menrorandum contains a.t least lwo verifiable false assertions of fact, and2) Ms. Eckert has or

Page B - Memorandunt Opposing Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Direct Comnrunicatiorrs

may have a persollal stake in the outcome of the Motion, and 3) they are ridiculous,

A, Miller Nash's Possible Conflict

On May 21 , 2009 , Mr. Olstad wrote a letter to Ms. Eckert responding to some allegations

she liad made and alerting her to the apparent conllict of interest evidenced by the difference in

Miller Nasli's attitude and US Bank's attitude when we deal with it directly. A copy of this letrer

is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit l.

No response to this letter has ever been forthcoming. as was effectively adrnitted by

N{ilier Nash r,vhen IVII, Olstad raised the matter during the August 18, 2009 Status Cont-erence

llearing. noted the iack of any response, and no explanation or denial was forthcoming.

h light of these facts, and in light of the seriousness of the appeararlce of a conflict of

itrterest rajsed by the letter, tire court sirould, before .it even considers Miller Nash's lVlotion.

require that some representation be forthcoming directly from the Bank's principals justilving a

preemptive strike on plaintiffs' riglits to speak and write, which are Constirutionally protected

fi'om most prior restraints by government - and this court is part of the government - by the Fir:st

Atnendment, Forsyth Cowtty, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120

L.Ed.2d 1 01 (I 992). Moreover, any submission from the bank should, at a minimum, be

requirecl to include detailed fbctual assertions, r-nade under oath, necessary to support the bank's

Motion,

lV. ConstitLrtional Implications

Prior restraints on speech and writine are presumptively unconstitutional, and require the

proponent to bear a heavy burden. lVe.brasku Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 421 IJ .5. 539, 96 5.0. 2791,

49 L.Ed.zd 683 (1976); Southeustern Prontotions v. Conracl,420 U.S. 546, 558, 95 S.Clt. 1239.

43 L Ed.2d 448 (r 975).

Page 9 - ,\[entorandum Oltposittg Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Di.rect Contmttnicalions

 So this courl is not u'riting on a blank slate. It must decide this issue "against the

background of a profound national commitrnent to the principle that debate on public issues

should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and

sontetimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Tintes Co.

t,. sullivcfit. 376 u.s. 254, 270, 84 S,Ct. 7 10. 721. I 1 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).

The same principles apply in labor disputes betr.veen purely private parties. Lirut v.

United Plant Guard LVorkers of America, Locql 114,38311.S. -53, 86 S.Ct. 657,15 L.Ed.2d 582

(1966). It is hard to see rvhy they do not apply rryhen the offended party is the CEO of a f-eclerally

regulatecl bank. It is not as if any of plairrtiff Kelly's let[ers threatened violence or any iliegai act

- they merely took the recipients to task for actions which, in her vierv, are in derogation of law

and the pubJic intcrest.

There is precious 1itt1e authority dir:ectly inhibiting the courts from interfering with

Constitutional nghts. because it is ordinarily the executive branch that violates rights and the

judicial branclr that vindicates them. Violations of constitutional right in adjudication are self-

corrccted by means of appellate and post-conviction remedies, and irnplicit in the existence of

those remedies is the notion tlrat all branches of govemment are subject to Constitutional

linritatiorrs. lt r.vas implicit in the outcome in Stanley v. Georgia,394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243,

22 L.Ed.zd 542 (1969) that state and federal courts were henceforth prohibited from issuing

search warants for evidence of private possession of obscene materials; the US Supreute Court

had put possession of such things beyond the reach of the government.

Def'endants seek to persuade this court to indulge them by taking action that mus afoul of

one of the most cherished principles in Anrerican j urisprudence.

V. Appropriate Rerredies

Pagc 10 - A4entorandum Opposing De/bndant's Motiott to Prohibit Direct Conmtuniccttions

 If US Bank's executives and in-house lau'yers al'e so deeply and profbruiclly clftcrccl by

the rclativelv,.f'ev, t:otnuttmicatipnsl2 they havc receiyecj frorn plaintiiT Ke Ity, the larv proyicles

thettt rvitlt rentedics that arc nrore than sulficient lo deal wirh it. Both state and fede::al lar.r,

pror,ide fbr the issLtatice oli irrjunctions. 'l'hat is rcally rvhat lvliller Nash is seeking hcre - an

itlf wtc(ion.

Ol course, therc arc- requiremcnts. OIICP 79 providcs in part:

A( 1 Xa) Whcn it appears that a partv is entitled to relief demanded in a plending, and such
rclie f. or an5,'pnrt thereol consisls of reslrainins the comrrrission or continuance of'somc
act, the conrmission or continuance of rvhich during the litigation lvould produce
iniur), to rhc partv scekirig the relief; or

A( I Xb) Wlrcn it appears that the pai-ty against u4:om a judgnrent js sought is doins or
tltrcratens. or is about to clo, or is pr:ocuring or sufTering to be donc, some act in violation
of the rights of'a partv seeking judgment conccrning the subject natter olthc acrion.
and tencling to rencler the jndgnrent ineffectual. (Ernphasis added).

What right does the CEO of t.JS Bank havc to court-ordelecl protccticin fi'<lm letters fron'r

citizens complaini:ig of'the actions o1'US Bank in the marteqrlace, e specially if thrise actions

have devilstating ccirrserluences fbr the ecclnonric well-being of evelv lrall, worran ancl child in

tlre natjon'.) It scems to plaintiffs tlrat susceptjbility to public cornment on one's actio:ts u,hjch

are o1'r.videspread consequence goes u.ith the CIEO's teirjtor).. And US Bank has not explained

lrirr,,, pliiintiff Kclly"r'rittng letters to US Bank solneho\\'injuresthe bank. There is no claim she

has ever scrnt mail to one or firole of the principals' homes, vacation homes or condos.

It rvolrlcl be anotlrer story if her: r.vrilings w'ere causing thc Bank's business to sutlfet'.

rvhierlr has becri alleged only in tlre most diaphanous, illusory and conclusive of tenrs, ttnless, ol

Lr()itrsc. what shc rvrites is tme. Then it is neither defanratory nor, given a t'irtional balancing tlrc

''
No one has mken tlre trouble to infolm the court ol'the exact number ol' letiers, or even
an approxirnate number ol letters, that have been sent to US llank by plaiutifl Kelly.

Page I I - ,\'fetnot'arrclwn Opposing Det'bntlant's fuIotion to Prohibit l)trect Communicatirnts

ecluities. the proper subject of injunctive relief. "The proper legal standard for preliminary

injunctive relief requires a pafiy to demonstrate 'that he is likcly to succeed on the merits, that he

is tikell to suffer irreparatrle harm in the absence of preliminarv relief, that the balance of

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the purblic interest. "' Stormans, Inc. v.

Seleckv,5Tl F.3d 960,978 (9th Cir.2009), quoting Winterv. NRDC,lnc.,l29 S.Ct. 365,374

(2008)). (Emphasis added). Defendants have not even come close to satisfying that standard.

State law even provides for the issuance of temporary restraining orders, but only if "[i]t

clearly appcars from specitic fbcts showr by an affidavit, a declaration or a verified complaint

that imrnediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage rvill result to the applicant before the

adverse party or the adverse parfy's attornev can be heard in opposition, . . ." ORCP 79B(1Xa).

No "specific facts" harre been provided by the bank as grounds for its remalkable claims.

and thc deerrth of them likely explains lvhy no injr,urctiorl wAS ever sought in state court.

lihe language of ORCP 798(i)(a), above, mirrors the language of FRCP 65(b), which is

applicable to TI{O's in federal court.

'I-here are a nurnber of US Code sections providing for injr-rnctions in specifically clefined

circumstances: 12 USC 1954 permits the Secretary of Treasury to enjoin illegal banking

practices, 17 USC 502 emporvers the courts to enjoin copyright infringements, 33 USC 2604

provides for injunctive relief in f-avor of the Secretary of Transportation against seagoing vessels

operating illegally, 15 USC -53 permits restraining and enjoining false advertising, 1 2 I JSC 1 976

provides tbr injunctivc rclicf against any bank using specified tying arrangements or vertical

restraints. 1B USC 216 allou,s injunctions against cerlain kinds of crirninal bchavior.

But nowhere irr the code that plaintiffs can locate is there a provision permitting or

providing for an injunction prohibiting letters from being rvritten to officials of a private,

Page 12 - Mentorctndunt Opposing Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Direct Communicatiorts

 federally repJLrlated bank complaining of their behavior in the public
marketplace. Axd neither.

apparently, could defendanls find such a code section or it would certainly

be cited in their

Memorandum.

The existence of all the code sections authorizing injunctive relief in their respective,

described circnmstances, when contrasted u'ith a lack of statutory authority

for the court to act in

as the defense wishes here shouid give the court pause, despite its general
c.qrdtable powers.

Finally, if Ms. Kelly comtaunicates with third parties besmirching the bank's repuration

or tirat of its officers, thev may certainly bring an action for detbrnation. ln fact, defamation

could have been. but was not, pled in response to the allegations in the complaint in this case.,l

If she lias detarned US Bank or its officers, injunctive relief is likely available. But rlie balk (or

its principals) must designate specifically'"virat it was she said was lrue rzs a maler o./'.fact thal
\^'as not true . aucl ltow that damages them. Their confusion about what to do with the letters r.vill

clear up.

CONCLUSION

So it appears that the defense seeks to have tlie court exceed its authority, act arbiharily

and inrpose an ttnconstilutional gag order on both plaintiffs with no grounds rvhatever in one casc

and without having to bc truthful or to show any harm arising fiom rhe communications sought

to be interdicted in the other.

Plarntilfs str:ongly urge the court to reject defendant's lvlotion or, in the alternative, to

require defendarit Bank to provide at least an arguable 1egal foundation for it, if any there be, and

'3 Of course, truth is an absolute defense to an action for defamati on. Cort v. St, pattl
Fire. ttnd A,{arine Ins'. Conparties',Inc.,3l l F.3d 979 (9'1Ctr.2002). Ancl, as noted above, the
nuth of the allegations changes the equities calculus dramaticaliy.

Page 1
-1 - Memorartdwn Opposing Delbndcmt'.s Motion to Prohibit Direct Commnnictztions
 then give plaintiffs an adequate opporfunity to
respond to that.

DArEDthis--

Respecttulrvsubmitted,

;ffi
Roberta Kelly D. Lawrence Olstad
Pr:o Se Pro Se

Page l4 - hlemctrcmdun Opposing Defbndant's A,[otion to Prohibit Direct Comntunications

 Roberta Kelly, Pro Se Plaintiff fAppellant]
roberla@mort gagegaleria.com
5109 NE Ainsworlh Street
Fg[iJE :1 i il,i f,, j:*-ii;Ilr-:.ifif
Portland, OR 97218-1826
Telephone: 503-849.4634

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Roberta Kelly, Case No. 3 :08-cv-00 421-AC

AFFIDAVIT
Plaintiff lAppellantl, MOTION, U.S.D.C., PORTLAND, OREGON;
JUDGES JOHN V. ACOSTA, ANN L. AIKEN,
v. U.S. BANK, BISHOP, WHITE & MICHAEL W. MOSMAN; MOTION TO THE
MARSHALL, P.S., a Washington NINTH CIRCLTIT AIIE4LS l REQUEST
professional seruices company; KRISTA T0-36144 INTERVENE 1 0-36 1 1 1 AND
WHITE, COTINSEL TO BE ASSIGNED; etcetera;
Defendants fAppellees], EXPERTS IN US CONSTITUTION AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW
v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Third-party-plaintiff [Appellee],

v.CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., an inactive Oregon corporation;
CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES FUND
INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation; ZB
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited
partnership,

Third-p arty- defendant.

MOTION

Plaintiff Pro-Se-Appellant, Roberta Kelly, submits, AFFIDAVIT, and REQIIESTS EXPERT

COLINSEL, etcetera.t

ihttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/htmVuscodel5/usc_sec_15_000
01692:-a000-.html
(6) The term "debt collector" means any persoTr who uses any instrumentality of interstate

1 - January 18, 2011, AFFIDAVIT, MorIoN, u.s.D.c., poRTLAND, oREGoN; JUDGES JoHN v. ACosrA, ANN L. AIKEN, MICHAELw
MOSMAN; MOTION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPEALS' COURT, REQUEST 10-36144 TNTERVENE 1 0-361 1 1 , EXPERT COUNSEL
IN US CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW; etcetera
 AFFIDAVIT

1. The Interncttional Monetary Fund ttMFl is an Agency of the United Nations [UNJ2

2. Judges clo not enforce statutes and cocles. Executive Administrators enforce statutes encl codes.

FRC v- GE, 281 U.S. 464 Kellerv. Potomac Electric Co., 261 U.S. 428 I Stat. l3A-1783
3. Wrhere the subject is incorporeal, or the estate expectant on a prececlentfreeholcl, the worcl in

his demesne are omitted. (Co. Litt. 17a; Fleta, 1.5, c.5, lB; Bract. 1.4, tr.5, c. 2,2) Browna No
property is owned, sluves cannot own property. The Deed when carefully read, TENANT, listed AND

Mortgage Holder or the State is listed as Seisecl in clemesne as offee. Senate Document 43, 73rcl

Congress lst Session5

4. The United Nations [UNJ finances operations of the United States Government Industry and has

now, for over fifty [50J years: owning every man, woman and chilct in America. The United Nations

commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owecl or clue
or assertecl to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of
the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of
collecting his own debts, uses any name other than ltis own which would indicate that a third
person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f (6) of
this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate
commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of
security interests. The term does not include-
2Black's
Law Dictionary 6th Ect. pg 816
3furthermore,
there are no judicial courts in America [approx ITsgJ
aBlack's
Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 1523
5Seised
in demesne as offee. This is the strict technical expression used to clescribe the
ownership in 'an estate in fee-simple in possession in a corporeal hereditament. The worcl 'seised
is usecl to express the 'seisin or owner's possession of a freehold property; the phrase 'in
demesne, or 'in his demesne, (in dominico suo) signtfies that he's seised cts owner of the land
itself, and not merely of the seigniory services; and the concluding words, 'as offee, import that
he is seised of an estate of inheritance in fee-simple

2 - January 18, 2011, AFFIDAVIT, MonoN, u.s.D.c., poRTLAND, oREcoN; v. ACosrA, ANN L. ArK€N, MTcHAEL w.
JUDGES JoHN
MOSMAN; MOTION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPEALS' COURT, REQUEST t0-36144 TNTERVENE I 0-36 1 1 I , EXPERT COUNSEI-
tN US CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW; etceterl
 also holds all of the lancl of America in Fee Simple.6

5. It is not tlte duty of the police to protect [the individualJ; the corporation is to be protected by

[policeJ tltose provided the [corporatejob to arrestJ code breakers, Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2'd

363;Reiff v. City of Philla.,477 F. Supp. 1262; Lynchv. NCDept. Of Justice,376 S.E.2nct.242

6. WE are Human CapitalT

7. We The People does not include the general populace, or what defined We The People, Barron

v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243

8. Social Security Numbersry are issued by the United Nations through the International Monetaty

Fund ILMFJ.e

9. The United States Treasury is the International Monetary Fundtq

10. The Unitecl States has not had a Treasuty since 192111

11. The most powerful court in Americct is not the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme

6Words * person, citizen, people, nation,

fact, authority, truth, crime, fraud, charge, right,
statute, preferred, assume, prefer, constitutor, creclitor, debtor, debit, discharge, payment, law,
United States, [countlessJ - words do not define the definitions and never have the Legal
D efinitions, to Understand, been forthcoming

TExecutive
Order 13037
sThe
applicationfor an is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF)
SSN
issues the SS5, not the 'Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who
publishes them while the oldform states they are Department of Treasury. 20 CFR Chap. t 11
Subpart B 422.103 (b)

eSocial
Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. Helveringv.
Davis, 301 U.S. 619; Steward Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548; Social Security checkcomes directly
from the IMF which is an Agency of the United N{ttions
l)Presidential Documents
Volume 29 No. 4 page 113 22 U.S.C. 285-288
tI4l Stctt. Ch. 214 page 654

3 -Januaryl8,20ll,AFFtDAVtr,MorIoN,u.s.D.c.,poRTLAND,oREGoN; JUDGESJoHNV.ACosTA,ANNL.ATKEN, MICHAELw.

MOSMAN; MOTION TO THE NINTI{ CIRCUIT APPEALS, COURT, REQUEST 10-36144 INTERVENE 1 0-36 1 i 1 , EXPERT COLN{SEL
IN US CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW; etceterq
 2
Court of Pennsylvaniat

12. The U.S. Constitution is not a defenset3

13. The Pope's Laws are obligatoryla

f 4. We are slaves [paupersJl5

15. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United

States government. Even though the "tJS Government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies.

(U.5. V. Strang , 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, I23q.16

The named, John V. Acosta, Ann L. Aiken, Michael W. Mosman, et al are in understanding of

this AFFIDAVIT, and a globalists' agendaforcing unilateral threatening and thus, conventional organ

creation, estrtblishing new rules, regulations and, law, establishment of a one world government to

dictate to the people ancl all the United States of America [etceteral global government industries.

Respectfully the 1 8rH day of January, 2011.

Roberta Kelly, Plaintiff Pro Se - Appellant

t242
Pa. c.s.A. 502
t3lrloT a party
to it, Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Alderman of the City of
Savannalt, 14 Georgia 438, 520

laBened.
XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. t,ii., n.4. Prati, 1844 Syttabus prop 28, 29,44 &
nb sp; 25

'sTillman v. Roberts, 108 So. 62 Van Koten v. Van Koten, I54 N.E. 146 Senate Docurnent
43, 73rd Congress lst Session Wynehammer v. People, I3 N.Y. Rep 378, 481
r6http://www.scribd.comldocl28926232140-Little-Known-Facts-About-America

4 - January 18, 2011, AFFIDAVIT, MortoN, u.s.D.c., poRTr-AND, oREGoN; JUDGES JOHN v. ACosrA, ANN L. ATKEN, MTcHAEL w
MOSMAN; MOTION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPEALS' COURT, REQUEST 10-36144 INTERVENE 10-361 1r , EXPERT COLTNSEL
IN US CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW; etcetero