BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

WAVEYDAVEY REPORT ON BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 As Related by Tes:

They begin letting people into the courtroom at 8:05. At 8:30 the prior hearing was still going on, and TAITZ arrived. Then there was a recess. At 8:40 the judge

reentered the courtroom and started up the session for this hearing.

For the defense there were three individuals:

Po lit

DEJUTE, and also Eric Sauzener (phonetic) from D.C.

focus on policy issues.

Fr

ie

Fr om

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

nd s

was in his motion to dismiss; that is, anybody with a political agenda and filing fees could contest the qualifications of presidents if this was allowed to proceed, which affects the balance of power. He mentioned the other Obama cases and said, the same If the president is forced to go through

issues there.

depositions, and so on, for all a these various cases, it would affect his ability to govern. If even one judge decides that Obama is not qualified, and a second decides that he is qualified, what then? Chaos. It would affect the ability to conduct foreign

policy, nuclear disarmament negotiations, and so on.

at

WEST presented his motion.

First he said he wanted to

He essentially reiterated what

ija b.
WEST,

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

This approach damages the presidency itself, the office, not just Barack Obama.

The president is the only office elected by all of the United States, and the textual commitment in the Constitution makes this issue nonjusticiable.

point the judge said, "I could never pronounce that word."

WEST continues that, this is committed to the legislative branch, not to the courts.

little bit about quo warranto, and said if it were to -if quo warranto were applicable at all, it would be okay if it were transferred to D.C. because D.C. is where it should be heard. here. However, quo warranto does not apply

ie

nd s

Then DEJUTE began to address the Court, and he focused He said he wanted to make two points. He talked

on the sur-reply.

Number one, the Ninth Amendment argument.

about what TAITZ said and said, but in the end only Congress has the power to remove a president. The Ninth

Fr om

Fr

Amendment is not a source of right when the Constitution explicitly states otherwise. The Constitution granted

the right both to seat a president and remove a president to Congress. The second point related to TAITZ's FOIA claim, that the plaintiff has asked the Court to disregard the fact

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.
At that He then talked a

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that they did not file the FOIA claims properly.

she

can't get around the rules that apply to FOIA in this roundabout way. You have to follow the rules.

CARTER interrupted to say, "I would like to hear about the standing issue."

WEST responded that plaintiffs simply cannot establish injury in fact or particularized harm. Because of this

there's no redressability and no justicability. CARTER then turned to the political question.

Po lit
CARTER posed a

was a lot of discussion back and forth about the Political Question Doctrine, and CARTER's focus was on trying to figure out how that works. said, there's two issues:

at

Number one, is this a

Fr

ie

Fr om

nd s

political question, and number two, walk me, (the judge) walk me through the process of how this political question will play out. If what the DOJ says is true, what would be the

process to remove the president determined to be ineligible? Is it part of the electoral college,

legislative process, or what? hypothetical.

What if Schwarzenegger ran for president Would they Make that

and Congress was ruled by the Republicans. help him? Would they ignore the problem?

analogy, CARTER said. WEST said, it's a totally different situation between

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ija b.
There Basically, he

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a candidate and a president.

There might have been

standing while we were just talking about candidates, but we're past all that now. CARTER said, okay. process.

Well then, walk me through the

So WEST focused on a couple of different things.

First he talked about the 25th Amendment procedures in

place to determine if a president can serve, or whether he's incapacitated or not, and WEST said by extension that would apply here. The 25th Amendment says what to

do when a president is incapacitated, and failure to qualify is a type of incapacitation. Secondly, he talked without the impeachment process,

ie

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

nd s

referring to the Nixon impeachment proceedings and what he said was, from both of these, the courts cannot be involved.

WEST said the sole power is granted to Congress to In fact, there's only two instances where the

impeach.

phrase "sole power" is used in the Constitution, both in regards to the Electoral College and Congress removing the president. The Constitution doesn't use that

language anywhere else, but they do use it, he said, with respect to the Electoral College and Congress, saying they have the sole power to make these kinds of decisions about the president.

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CARTER went back to the question, but what is the process? How would Congress proceed? Would Congress

proceed by impeachment proceedings or some other process?

WEST said, we have the 25th Amendment.

a process of incapacitation, so you could use the 25th Amendment process, and then he explained that process, two-thirds vote of both houses, et cetera, et cetera. DEJUTE said, you know, it's not exactly clear, here, what plaintiffs are asking for. for him to be removed or not? which way it is. Are plaintiffs asking

would be the only means.

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ie

nd s

his head in agreement. DEJUTE said, courts have no jurisdiction if they're

saying they want to remove him from office because that can only be done by impeachment. Then CARTER talked about the problem of plaintiffs

picking a forum and shopping for courts, and said, if it was a quo warranto action shouldn't it be in the D.C. court. WEST said quo warranto is not applicable, but if

it was D.C. is the appropriate place. CARTER then discussed whether Congress has the ability to direct the courts as to who has jurisdiction (this was in the context of discussing the quo warranto statute.)

at

If it's removal, then impeachment At this point CARTER nodded

Po lit

They're not really saying

ija b.
This could be

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CARTER was questioning whether Congress could say one court has jurisdiction and another court doesn't. [Time: It's now 9:00.]

At 9:00 TAITZ begins to speak, and she said impeachment is not appropriate because impeachment can only be used for a legitimate president. Since he's not legitimate This is why we

he does not qualify for impeachment. have quo warranto.

THE COURT: quo warranto?

You have conceded that in your papers. You (the judge) are mandated to

MS. TAITZ:

use quo warranto to decide if the individual is illegitimate for the position.

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ie

nd s

In other words, TAITZ said not only can CARTER take the quo warranto case, but he must. She then complained about the government being

involved on behalf of Obama, said they're the government, they should not be an adversary in this process they should be helping her, but they're not. CARTER interrupted her to say that he wanted her to talk about standing. TAITZ's response was, before going to standing, I want to go to the jugular of what WEST said, that if the case proceeds any plaintiff with a political agenda is able to bring an action against a standing president.

at

Po lit

Shouldn't this be in D.C. for

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (NOTE:

TAITZ contended that WEST has misrepresented the situation. question. It's not a political question, it's a legal The question is, is Obama legitimate for the Politics is irrelevant and goes by the

presidency. wayside.

She then said there's no res judicata from other cases because no other case has been tried on the merits. matter.

Anything that's happened so far doesn't really

Then she addressed the Court to say, just as you have served our country bravely as a marine, we hope you have bravery to try this case on the merits and not dismiss it on a technicality.

ie

nd s

Major Cook, (she pronounced it "Kook") ... in the

Major Cook case, Judge Land dismissed not on the merits, but in that case it was shown to the world the president's illegitimacy. his orders? Why else would they dismiss

The only explanation for dismissing

Fr

Major Cook's orders is that the top brass know that Barack Obama is illegitimate. With respect to Rhodes,

Fr om

the Rhodes case did provide standing.

As a side note, waveydavey could see the DOJ

marshalling up papers showing that TAITZ said the opposite in papers in Rhodes. But they came back and addressed it.)

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CARTER asked TAITZ whether Rhodes refused to deploy. TAITZ responded no, but she was under duress and coercion.

And TAITZ contended that she, herself, had

been threatened with sanctions and she's now withdrawn as counsel.

CARTER then referred to a plaintiff in the current case, Lieutenant Freese and asked whether he had received any orders to deploy. she didn't know.

THE COURT:

for patriotic military members to question the

legitimacy of chain of command when it's all only speculative. He then asked TAITZ, have any orders been

Fr

Fr om

ie

nd s

cut for this lieutenant, and if not, what standing does he have?

TAITZ responded, well, there's many layers of

standing, and then she discussed Rodearmel, which is a D.C. case challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton's ability to be Secretary of State. TAITZ said that in Rodearmel a three-judge panel

has found standing for this gentleman who has taken an oath to serve in the department of state and is challenging her legitimacy.

(Side Note:

TAITZ's contention is false.

at

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

TAITZ's response was that

This is troubling to any court

ija b.
The case Rodearmel

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

is actually before a three-judge panel in D.C.

However,

the court has not ruled on that case yet, so they have not found standing. There was a hearing on the issue

but there is no ruling.)

TAITZ then discussed the concept of taking oaths, and that the military has taken oaths and the

representatives have taken oaths, and under those oaths the Constitution must be upheld, and that's why they have standing because they've taken oaths.

She mentioned Allen versus Board of Education and Clark versus USA, two cases that she cited in her brief. CARTER said had one of the cases in front of him,

ie

nd s

[WaveyDavey thinks it was Clark), and said yes, but the claimants in that case had standing but that's because their injury was not conjectural, hypothetical, or speculative. THE COURT: Many of your military plaintiffs Therefore, their situation is

Fr om

Fr

are not on active duty.

merely speculative and hypothetical. So then CARTER switched back to Lieutenant Freese, who is on active duty, and discussed his situation for a bit, and then addressed retired plaintiffs. With respect to the retired military

plaintiffs Judge CARTER said, "You're losing your

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

argument unless you can convince me otherwise." TAITZ responded to Judge CARTER by quoting Brown versus Board of Education.

What if Thurgood Marshall was The judge

here arguing the case for desegregation.

might say, how are those students harmed? still go to school. well, he's dead.

Judge CARTER interrupted to say

TAITZ continued, trying to make the

analogy between Thurgood Marshall arguing for desegregation and her situation.

(At this point she was going full steam, her voice was rising, she was getting louder, and hammering the podium as she was making her points.) TAITZ went back to discussing Allen versus Board

nd s

of Education and Clark versus USA and said in those cases the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution was violated, and those plaintiffs had standing. So too

Fr om

Fr

ie

here, her military plaintiffs would be harmed if they were forced to do something that violates her oaths, and the same would apply for the other oathtakers the state representatives. CARTER returned back to Lieutenant Freese. He

said, you are claiming that active military members have standing. And then he read a section from Allen versus Then he said, the Allen case isn't

Board of Education.

binding, and even if it was, subsequent to Allen the

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.
They could

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

standing requirements have been tightened. He also discussed Tahoe Planning case [City of South Lake Tahoe versus Cal. Tahoe Reg. Planning

Agency, a Supreme Court case, 1980], to say it's always

so clear who has standing and doesn't, and said based on the Tahoe case, Lieutenant Freese fails to establish standing. ... [duplicate entry deleted] ... ... ... ... ... ...

Fr

ie

nd s

TAITZ responded by saying in their reply the DOJ

could see that the plaintiffs had standing, and then referred back to the Allen versus Board of Education case, where she said Allen plaintiffs had standing because they were being forced to buy books, while here people have been forced to buy the president. Just as

Fr om

in Allen, they shouldn't have been forced to buy books, you shouldn't force the people here to buy the President. She then started talking about the Sandra Lines affidavit saying that the COLB was forged, but CARTER

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

cut her off and said, I want to talk about Lieutenant Freese. TAITZ responded by saying all these

plaintiffs took oaths.

CARTER read from the case again, in part, and then he walked through different categories of

plaintiffs saying retired, then active military members, then representatives, and oathtakers, and then he said, now let's talk about plaintiffs who are candidates. He reiterated the particulars of the Lightfoot v Bowen case and said as to this group of people the defense argues that plaintiffs failed to establish injury due to lack of winning the election because they could not possibly get enough ballots to win, but he

nd s

wondered whether that was accurate. What would have happened if Ross Perot had How would

challenged a candidate during his campaign? Perot have fared during this process?

Fr

ie

He questioned, does the fact that you don't have He

enough votes to win mean that you aren't harmed?

wasn't sure, but he also wasn't sure how you would establish injury in fact for these candidates. TAITZ responded that the DOJ brought up a good argument in that respect, and anyway Drake and Robinson were not her plaintiffs anymore. CARTER responded, that doesn't matter. The cases

Fr om

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

are not separated. TAITZ said, well, Keyes can show sizable injury. If Obama couldn't satisfy citizenship then Keyes has a good case.

[AT THIS POINT IT'S 9:30 AND KREEP ARRIVED.]

(KREEP came in the back way, from where the judge enters and exits, and went up and sat down immediately at counsel table.)

During this same period, CARTER was posing questions. So there's the question of jurisdiction.

at

Po lit

concerned about political questions, and then he tells

ie

nd s

both sides to write down his questions. And they are: Whether the political question is

justicable or not (saying it's all sort of entwined together, hard to separate out whether it's a political question or legal question in some cases)? Can this

Fr

issue in fact only be decided by the electorate? He then cited to Powell versus McCormick which he said

Fr om

dismantled the political question for someone who has been elected to Congress, some tainted candidate, and talked about the Bush case having to do with Guantanamo, dealing with national defense, so, not merely political. Therefore, he has to be careful about this jurisdiction

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ija b.
He's

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

issue, he stated.

Is there a substantial federal question He expressed

and, if so, which court is the right court.

concern about sweeping the case under the jurisdictional rug.

He also talked about a case that Justice Kennedy had ruled on and then referenced McCain and his

Panamanian birth and the fact that that was endangering his candidacy at one point.

hypothetical where he was born in Panama, but what would have happened if his mother was enroute from Germany from Panama when she had him.

He seemed to be taking the point of view of the mother, that just because my son was born in Germany

nd s

rather than Panama, he can't be president?

at

said if Obama was born in Kenya that's equally an insult to Obama's mother.

Fr

ie

TAITZ said, this is not a political question, it's

an issue to be satisfied on the merits. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: In Congress? (Emphatically) No, by you.

Fr om

TAITZ then started talking about Bowen again, saying Bowen, Secretary of State of California, did not scrutinize the requirements for Obama's eligibility, and TAITZ even has an e-mail from Bowen that proves she didn't check. Bowen said she took Obama's word for it.

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

CARTER then posed the

ija b.
Similarly he

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Was fraud committed? She was interrupted at this point by someone, and she said, "Can I just finish?"

And then she went on to mention the memo that she got from Senator Sessions where he was indicating he should look into it, but then he didn't.

CARTER interrupted her, to move on, and he said, you've requested discovery, but that's held up due to 12(b)(6) because that's very much in question at this point, very much in question. want to depose Obama? And anyway, why do you

He asked about the FOIA request, and asked why not just examine the Hawaiian birth certificate. Why

nd s

are we even concerned about these Kenyan birth certificates? He mentioned the controversy over the But, who cares? What matters

Kenyan birth certificate.

Fr om

Fr

ie

is the Hawaiian birth certificate. TAITZ responded with regards to the Hawaiian birth

certificate, that Hawaii must have Obama's consent before they release it, but so far he has refused to give it. He just should just consent, but since he hasn't, that shows he has something to hide. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: My last question: If I may... No, you may not.

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

He has no memory about his birth.

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CARTER then said the government has said that the government should he solve this issue. Once the

president has taken office we're in a different situation.

Prior to that the Electoral College could

have addressed it, and that would have been the time to file these lawsuits.

You (TAITZ) filed on the day of inauguration. on election day?

There was then a long discussion about

the exact date and time that these papers were filed. TAITZ said, I filed before he was inaugurated. THE COURT:

stamp it was filed at 3:00 p.m.

at

when we already have a duly-sworn president rather

ie

nd s

earlier in the day or much prior to that? TAITZ responded that she had another case in

November before he was duly sworn in. THE COURT: He was already sworn in before You had a lack of

this case ever got to my desk. diligence.

Fr

Why wait until that last day?

I'm going to make a finding that the opportunity Why

Fr om

was lost for the Electoral College to address it.

did you wait until the last day, and until 3:00 p.m. at that? TAITZ replied, I did file another case, and Justice Roberts agreed that all nine justices would hear

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

Well, according to the time Why wait until 3:00

ija b.

co
Why file

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it, but then it was erased from the docket.

And she

continued discussing her conspiracy theory related to the appeal of Lightfoot versus Bowen.

CARTER stopped her, saying that he was deeply

concerned about whether her plaintiffs had standing, and he reiterated the different categories of plaintiffs.

With respect to retired military and active military he said it was conjectural and hypothetical.

to state elected officials and candidates he said essentially the same thing. It's questionable as to

whether any of these groups have standing.

At that point he gave Gary KREEP the opportunity to speak.

nd s

KREEP apologized for being late.

at

interrupted.

THE COURT:

Fr

ie

severance motion. KREEP responded that he plans to amend his

complaint. THE COURT: It won't be granted. Whatever

Fr om

you have to say you better say it now. KREEP - I represent two plaintiffs only. Then he

referred back to the McCain analogy that Judge CARTER had mentioned earlier, and he said that law was changed anyway, so it's not applicable. With two citizen

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit
CARTER

I'm not going to grant your

ija b.
With respect

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

parents he would be a U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born, but at the time he was born that revision didn't apply. Judge CARTER agreed.

KREEP said in the case of Obama the mother was

not old enough under current law, and then went into the discussion that all this issue has to do with is what's in the Constitution.

CARTER responded, no, it's not. laws to say what it means. law which affected McCain. again.

If so, it becomes a political issue.

it's a political issue.

Congress can make a law about who is a citizen and who

Fr

ie

nd s

is not a citizen, then what that law is or how the Constitution is interpreted on that issue is a political question because Congress gets to decide. Then he went back to the opinion that

Justice Kennedy wrote, and commented that he thinks it's absurd if a mother's location at birth renders her child ineligible to run for president. Regardless of what

Fr om

specific laws are there, it's ridiculous, CARTER said. KREEP said, I want to focus issues here relevant to the extraneous defendants. CARTER said, yes, you've been very focused. appreciate it. I

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

Congress acted to change the Congress could change it Therefore,

He then talked more about if

ija b.
Congress passes

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KREEP then also said there's no need to take Obama's deposition. All you have to do is subpoena the Then he complained about false

document from Hawaii.

statements made by TAITZ relevant to the prior case, the Keyes versus Bowen or Lightfoot versus Bowen case.

(Earlier in the hearing she'd been criticizing KREEP for how he ruined her case.)

Then he went back to the arguments made in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, that is, he made the argument about how the original intent was for the Electoral College to decide on the Presidency, because they were the most informed voters and the average citizen was not informed. Therefore, they put the responsibility on the

ie

nd s

Electoral College, but now the people themselves are the most informed voters and that original intent is no longer applicable.

CARTER then dismantled that argument.

at

the Electoral College could challenge it.

Fr om

Fr

You (KREEP) are saying that 26 states have laws requiring electors to vote for the winning candidate, but what about the other states? raise the issue, and nobody did. Was there a conscious decision made not to raise the issue on the part of the Electoral College that are not part of that group that can't change their vote? So Any one of them could

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

ija b.
He said Did they?

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

what about those? happened?

They could have challenged it.

What

Of course, CARTER said, it's a totally

different situation before and after the inauguration. KREEP responded, well, any individual should be able to raise this question.

CARTER said, well, why was it not raised by any state? KREEP said he didn't know. happened but it didn't.

ask if there was any challenge, as he should have, in Congress, referring to the counting of the Electoral College vote.

However, KREEP said, regardless of that, the

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ie

nd s

citizens have the right to know if their president is legitimate.

CARTER asked, well, what is the process if he's

not legitimate? KREEP said if he's not legitimate then Biden

becomes president and all the orders that have been signed by Obama are not valid. CARTER asked, so you believe the federal courts should be involved? KREEP responded yes. CARTER said, but some courts might be more liberal than others, and there's a danger the plaintiffs

at

Po lit

He said it could have

KREEP then said Cheney did not

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

will just search for a friendly forum.

CARTER expressed

concern about forum shopping to find a friendly judge to rule on these issues.

He turned to TAITZ and said, why did you bring this case here instead of Illinois?

(At this point it's about 10:15 a.m.)

TAITZ responded, I live here, and I'm licensed here, not in Illinois. And I tried D.C., which has quo

warranto, but it didn't go anywhere.

At that point CARTER said, he was ready to call a recess, but he gave questions to each side.

at

he's concerned about jurisdiction, standing, and

nd s

process, and under process if there's going to be a removal what is the process. Something else? Is it impeachment?

25th amendment?

Fr

ie

Nobody, CARTER said, has been able to explain to

him what would be the process for removal of a president in this situation. forum shopping. He turned to Taitz and said, you must address standing. You're in danger of failing to do that. He also said he was concerned with

Fr om

He then said that he really does like to have courts open and for people to have a chance to be heard, and stated, "My mind is not made up."

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

ija b.
He said

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

There was a recess just a little after 10:15. The hearing went back in session at 10:40. WEST was up first for the defense.

WEST said, I'm going to address the question of

jurisdiction, political question, and then the process walkthrough.

With respect to jurisdiction, if you are talking about removal of a president the clear power is

committed for Congress textually from the Constitution which grants Congress "sole power." more clear. It could not be

With respect to the Political Question Doctrine

Fr

Fr om

ie

nd s

WEST said, if an issue is textually committed for a branch of government by the Constitution, then it's a political question. So whereas here the issue is

textually committed to Congress, it is a political question and not justicable by the courts. CARTER asked, then the courts would never have

jurisdiction to enter into this area? MR. WEST: THE COURT: MR. WEST: Yes. Courts have no role? Yes. The only role would be when

the Supreme Court chief justice presides over impeachment.

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

WEST then reiterated the issue that he talked about before, about the political chaos that would come on if individual plaintiffs could sue in courts around the United States challenging the presidency.

Then WEST addressed the process walkthrough, and

he contended that Congress has the ability to decide the process. He mentioned that this happened in the Nixon

impeachment.

Congress set up a committee that sat down

and hammered out the process for proceeding on the impeachment hearings. Hypothetically, he said, that's There is,

what would happen here if it were to occur.

in fact, nothing stated explicitly in the Constitution about exactly how the process works, but the Constitution gives

nd s

Congress the power to decide how. did with respect to Nixon. THE COURT:

at
Yes. Yes.

ie

the issue? MR. WEST: THE COURT: MR. WEST:

Fr

Fr om

CARTER then turned to TAITZ and said, has any individual senator raised the issue? that she doesn't know. WEST then continued to describe the process, saying that if the president was unable to discharge his TAITZ responded

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

Again, this is what Congress

Can any individual senator raise

Is that the proper forum?

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

powers of office under the 25th Amendment, the 25th Amendment procedures, two-thirds vote, et cetera, would be in place.

He said it's a very clear textual commitment to Congress to manage that process and, therefore, the issue is not justicable. CARTER said, yeah. process, right?

Congress can create the

And at this point DEJUTE said yes.

Well, in any case, it can be clear that the court is not the place to do it.

TAITZ then began speaking, saying this is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

at

how she wrote to Bowen, and Bowen said she didn't check,

Fr

Fr om

ie

nd s

and she didn't need to because she took Obama's word. She talked about various other events in the history of her case, and said if the system can't bring justice then we have a dictatorship, tyranny, no rule of law. Somebody like Bin Laden could come to the country with a bunch of money and buy the election. CARTER interrupted her to say, back to my If it's impeachment or another process why TAITZ responded by

question.

has no one in Congress raised it?

talking about Senator Sessions, saying that senate ethics precluded him from getting involved in something having to do with pending legislation. She contended

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Po lit

TAITZ talked again about

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

maybe that's why they have abstained, so that you, (Judge CARTER), could rule on it.

At this point she went off on another tangent, her voice raising, and pounding on the podium. She

started talking about the alleged multiple Social Security numbers of Obama, including the one that

involved to a 121-year-old man, the massive fraud,

corrupt government, he refuses to decide the issues. TAITZ contended, even if she showed a video of Obama's birth taking place in Kenya they're not willing to listen. The government is too corrupt. They've

taken away our constitutional rights and, therefore, the judiciary has the right to intervene. She repeated,

Fr om

Fr

ie

nd s

because Congress is so corrupt the judicial branch can intervene.

She then referenced another case, D.C. versus

Heller, (Second Amendment case decided decide by the Supreme Court) and, according to Taitz, D.C. versus Heller overrides all previous cases, and under D.C. versus Heller ordinary citizens have the right to enforce provisions of the Constitution. Then she went back to arguments stated in her opposition about under the Ninth Amendment, Fifth and Fourth Amendment they all give any citizen the right to uphold the Constitution. Whether the rights are

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

enumerated or not enumerated she said the individual citizen has the right to uphold the Constitution.

(At this point it's 1)1:00.

TAITZ, in terms of standing, referenced Rodearmel,

where she (incorrectly) said a three-judge panel has found standing. She also referenced Clark versus U.S. and

Allen versus Board of Education.

She said if a person takes an oath and is forced to violate it, it's a de facto taking of his employment. Therefore, we do have standing, at least with respect to those who took an oath, but indeed all citizens have

nd s

standing, due to the fact that we're taxpayers. his salary. If he got there by fraud (she then

at

Po lit

mentioned all the Social Security numbers and alleged forged COLB, et cetera. It affects us as taxpayers. And it's not just the She

Fr om

Fr

ie

salary, but all the other expenses he's incurring.

referenced the AIG rescue bill where AIG got money, a substantial portion of which went to foreign companies. She said we have a right to know who is this man. At this point she's wound up again pounding on the podium, her voice raising. In Lightfoot versus Bowen,

she said, the only answer they got in this case was that

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ija b.
We pay

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it was denied, but the court refused to give them an explanation. What harm? to be harm? You want to know what harm?

There has

God knows we've experienced plenty of harm.

She then started listing all the horrible things she said Obama is doing with the legislation.

is not an issue of politics, it's an issue of quo warranto.

At which point the peanut gallery broke into

clapping and cheering.

CARTER said, if it's quo warranto why not take it to D.C.? TAITZ said, I submitted to Eric Holder in March.

He's had plenty of time, but he didn't respond. also said that she'd submitted it to Taylor.

at

Po lit

ie

nd s

CARTER said, well why does my court have And TAITZ tried to explain, (but our

jurisdiction?

intrepid reporter had difficulty following her logic. The best he understood is you have power to remove a usurper. Because he's a usurper you have power. You

Fr

have the poser to remove the usurper). TAITZ said that WEST said earlier in the hearing

Fr om

that there would be a disaster for citizens to assert their rights in any court. without such rights. She then discussed all the other dictators, which, she said Obama was like all these other dictators, and I was born in a country

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ija b.
She said this She

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

she gave her personal example of how her uncle was sent to Siberia, the judges were puppets of the regime. Her

aunt tried to kill herself, even with two children, but she was saved, but her uncle was broken and eventually died.

This she said this is what happens when citizens

have no rights.

She then brought it back to Obama and said, when I first heard him speak I knew the direction we were going in, and I was horrified. (At which point the peanut

gallery broke into clapping).

TAITZ continued, I know that you (Judge CARTER), have served in the military and have taken an oath.

at

Po lit

you will not take their rights away from the plaintiffs

nd s

and all other citizens. statute.

I hope you will enforce the

CARTER then addressed the audience saying, I can

Fr

ie

assure you that I've experienced no pressure on making a decision.

Addressing TAITZ, he said, apparently on your blog We have

you've encouraged people to contact this court. had 40 to 100 calls a day. it's from you. ...[duplicate entry deleted] ...

Fr om

If there's any pressure,

CARTER continued, what you are saying is that other

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ija b.
I hope

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

country that you grew up in, that's not this country. do not believe that our country is as corrupt as you

I

believe, and your personal experience would not be the same in this country. honest. Most people are ethical and

This is where we part company.

point is trusting.

(At this point it's about 11:15.)

KREEP gets to talk again, making the same case that he made before, and then he also argues that in order to impeach a president he must have been valid in the first place, but because Obama didn't qualify, he can't be

nd s

impeached, because he's not really in office.

at

he can't be in office because he's ineligible, therefore everything the defense said about impeachment doesn't apply because Obama is not really president. It's not a political question, KREEP said, it's a The big question is, is he eligible. And if he's

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ie

legal question.

If he's not, then he's not there in office.

not there in office then he can't be removed by impeachment, because he's not there, because he's not eligible. CARTER said, so which plaintiffs have standing? KREEP said, I only represent two, but under [Hollander]

Po lit

ija b.
My starting Because

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Drake and Robinson have standing.

All candidates for

office are damaged if there's any other candidate who is not eligible. CARTER said, what is the injury in fact?

KREEP responded, the injury in fact is that there was not a fair election.

CARTER then discussed the two-party system and

viability of third-party candidates, and expressed that he thinks having the ability for third-party candidates is important, and then he said he still wants to know why no one has raised this issue.

KREEP said some senators and representatives have raised the issue, but not impeachment.

Fr om

Fr

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

ie

nd s

CARTER asked, well, did Congress avoid all this

because of all these cases, all these 40 cases, or do they avoid it because it's a case of first impression, or what?

KREEP responded that up until now all the cases

have been procedural and there's been no ruling on the merits. CARTER said, well, I'm most concerned with standing, very concerned about standing. KREEP then began to talk about the issue of the Electoral College and Congress and what and how they can address it.

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CARTER interrupted him saying, I'm troubled I can never get to that point in court. standing. Tell me about

KREEP said, well look this whole issue has been going on for over a year, it's on people's minds, its festering.

Therefore, CARTER said, my issues are about standing justicability, jurisdiction.

standing but not on other issues, what would be the effect?

KREEP said, I think you should make rulings on as many issues as possible, because if you deny the motion to dismiss they'll appeal on that one issue and then

ie

nd s

we'll be back here to address another issue and another issue, and it will go on and on. KREEP then went back to the issue about citizens We can't rely on

must be able to enforce requirements.

Congress, who only has the Electoral College. KREEP then presented a quote "slippery slope"

Fr om

Fr

argument saying if you are going to say that people can't have standing to address this issue then what other right will you say that on tomorrow? KREEP acknowledged that this was a slippery slope, but he said it's applicable here because then people will start picking and choosing what rights to take away

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

Po lit

ija b.
If I rule on

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

next. KREEP then said, because of this point, a president's questioned place of birth, we have a

constitutional issue that cannot be decided solely by Congress.

CARTER then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. tentative ruling today. He did not make a

arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.

He turned to plaintiffs and said, I'm most concerned about standing.

To the defendants he said, I'm most concerned

Fr

Fr om

ie

nd s

about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go. He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule

against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future. To the audience he said, your applause has not

influenced me at all, one way or the other. To TAITZ he said, apparently you've encouraged people to call me on your blog. phone calls. They don't help. Please discourage the It was inappropriate for

you to do that.

He then stated, obviously you've had no scheduling

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

at

However, it won't bear on my decision.

Po lit

He wants to consider the

ija b.

co

m

BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING OCTOBER 5, 2009 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

conference, but we'll stick by the dates previously set for now. He thanked everybody and the hearing ended.

Fr om

Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Fr

ie

nd s

at

Po lit

ija b.

co

m

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful