• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal
Page 1 of 5
Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal
By: Devvy Kidd, November 5, 2009http://www.devvy.com/new_site/barnett_v_obama_110509.html  Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge DavidCarter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build eachtime one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visitfrom the Secret Service.I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes tounderstand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us.This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed beforeObama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22(http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt), Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. SupremeCourt Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course,this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in onJanuary 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest:http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/22/nation/na-obama-oath22 From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant)that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one mustto understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January 26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion todismiss.If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC(http://tinyurl.com/yc5ywr6
),
she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery andthat Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied peopleto a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast? All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides.In this particular post, (http://tinyurl.com/mg5xrh) John Charlton maintains that early discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:“
 Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss
 "This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours thatJudge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, inSanta Ana Federal Court."The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the
 
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal
Page 2 of 5
Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regardingpreparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. Thisseems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will befollowed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time.Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in theprinciple action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-calledLavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document(http://tinyurl.com/y9pw6g
r
)
is unclear at this time."
 The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge:(http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM41_birtherscarterorder.pdf ) Order Denying Plaintiff'sMotion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and DenyingPlaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application forOrder Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below;see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of my readers knows the link they can send it along.If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009 (http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt). WhenI mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning onpage 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in thepublic domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See thetranscript of the hearing, page 21 where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "... a vehicleand an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to getthe defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 thathe doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerningthe merits."Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty of the Quo Warranto (§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial:http://tinyurl.com/QW-Pleading)
 
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty"as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be,may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if eitherparty requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat.603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed.,§ 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes thisstatement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would orderthat any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery  before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tightdeadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2:http://tinyurl.com/yaqawlg)Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application
 
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal
Page 3 of 5
for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can readit here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/22249214/Barnett-v-Obama-Ex-Parte-Appl-Limited-Stay-9-10-09  At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case wasdismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be takenaway.This is Judge Carter's ruling (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21903414/Barnett-v-Obama-Carter-Dismisses-Suit) on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. Theissue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and thatit must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. JudgeCarter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501(http://tinyurl.com/QuoWarranto). Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would bereversed on appeal filed by the defendants.Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29(http://www.scribd.com/doc/21903414/Barnett-v-Obama-Carter-Dismisses-Suit). In herown defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here:http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5801. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 inOrly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims:http://larrysinclair.org/LarrysForum/topic/taitz-major-bs#post-66 Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (socialsecurity numbers). See this [July 13, 2009] transcript, page 8:http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt.
 
Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago onher web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separatedthem. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by herinvestigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least seeif the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs,due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.
Barack Hussein Obama
 http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Obama_addresses.pdf  
Stanley Ann Dunham
(his deceased mother)http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Dunham_addresses.pdf  
Michelle Obama
http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Michelle_addresses.pdf  I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The sameapplies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they areall for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5725), Ms. Daniels states:
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...