Keyes v. Obama: Judge Agrees to Move Case Forward
In what is sure to be a rhetorical clash between the “birthers” (referring to those who think that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President) and the “illegitimizers” (a term I coined for those who castigate anyone who questions the President’s eligibility), Judge David O. Carter has agreed to move Dr. Orly Taitz’s Keyes v. Obama case forward to a point where a decision can be made whether or not to hear the case. Originally, Dr. Taitz had said that the dispute is over the way she served notice of the lawsuit to Mr. Obama.
Dr. Taitz’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment by Default can be found here.
One of the Plaintiffs in Dr. Taitz’ cases relayed the following to myself and a number of other individuals:
Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.
Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.
This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.
Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.
Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.
However, a concerned citizen and non-”birther” (for lack of a better phrase) friend of this site with connections in the legal community relayed the following to me…
Phil:
At today’s hearing in Keyes v. Obama, Orly did not obtain the default judgment she was hoping for, nor did she get discovery. Judge Carter, agreeing with the United States Attorney (who had filed a Statement of Interest), found that Orly did not have proper service on Obama. Per the court, service must be achieved under Rule 4(i) because Obama is named a defendant as the result of the office he holds. In other words, the court rejected Orly’s argument that Obama could be sued in his individual capacity.
The court granted Orly another opportunity to serve the Complaint properly, and suggested that she and the Assistant US Attorney simply go downstairs to the US Attorney’s Office and serve the US Attorney. This means that a response to the Complaint will be due in 60 days. The Assistant United States Attorney agreed that the United States will not seek any extension.
Bear in mind that a responsive pleading may be an answer to the complaint OR a motion to dismiss (lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, etc.).
Here is what WorldNetDaily reported about the case’s status:
According to attorney Orly Taitz, who is working on multiple cases alleging Obama is a “usurper” because he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can be president, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a hearing today that her case will move forward.
The hearing was on her motion for a default order against Obama, because although Taitz said she notified him of the action, Obama’s attorneys did not make an appearance.
Her complaint was filed against the president on Jan. 20, the day of his inauguration, over his actions before he became president.
Taitz has told WND if her motion for default is granted she immediately would request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office. …
She told WND that at today’s hearing, the judge issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute. He said there would be no dismissals based on “procedural issues.”
The judge said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.
While no attorneys appeared on Obama’s behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney’s office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.
The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.
Taitz told WND, “For first time, we have a judge who’s listening.”
Multiple WND calls to various branches of the U.S. attorney’s offices in California did not generate any response.
Taitz said she has some changes to make in the pleadings, but she was able to fully explain the reasons for her case.
“He [the judge] heard the whole thing,” she said.
And from the Los Angeles Times (who similarly interviewed Dr. Taitz and a spokesman for the US Attorney’s office) comes this posting:
Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to “the merits” of their case. But others present for the hearing Monday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana stressed that the case remains a long way from ever getting a full airing in court and may never get to that point.
The case, Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al. was filed on Inauguration Day and is one of a raft of suits alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a “natural born citizen.” Such claims have fared badly in court to date. In December, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a case challenging Obama’s right to take the oath of office.
Perhaps because of that history, Orly Taitz, the lawyer who filed the current suit, was greatly cheered by Monday’s hearing. “He’s very determined to hear the case on the merits,” Taitz said, referring to the judge. “He stated, the country needs to know if Mr. Obama is legitimate, if he can legitimately stay in the White House.”
That’s not quite the way Asst. U.S. Atty. David DeJute heard the judge’s comments. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said that “the judge did make a bunch of comments about having the matter correctly and thoroughly aired, once and if they got to the merits of the actual lawsuit, which was not the subject of today’s discussion.”
The key word is “if,” Mrozek stressed. “We’re literally at procedural grounds at this point in time,” he said.
At a previous hearing, Carter had ruled that Taitz had not properly served the case on Obama. In Monday’s hearing, both Taitz and DeJute tried to prematurely argue the merits of the case. Carter, a former marine, told both parties that the case could easily be tied up for months or another year on procedural technicalities. A better approach would be for Taitz just to file the paperwork so that the case could proceed without more delays, the judge said.
Once the paperwork is filed, the government has 60 days to respond.
– Tami Abdollah in Santa Ana
Bottom line? I think the next to last paragraph of the Times‘ story says it best: the case is going to move forward without hindrance to the point that the Judge can make a decision on whether or not the actual case is to be tried. In other words, while the Judge is making sure that procedural issues are taken care of, he must still decide whether or not the case will be heard.
I’ll be updating this posting as circumstances warrant.
Yesterday’s docket:
The following is the Statement of Interest as filed by the US Attorney’s office filed before yesterday’s hearing:
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Black Lion, Do they teach Harvard students how best to seal documents and block openness while claiming transparncy? How to excel in doublespeak? Is that the best school to learn that technique and how to operate under several names? I had thought Harvard had some ethics, evidently not. Is that what so impresses you? Taft sounds far more ethical and above board. Goes to show you can educate a goat, but it is still a goat, I guess. You can give a bad bugle to a skilled bugler, and they can bring out music from the bad trumpet that a poor bugler could never find, even with a good bugle. So much for Harvard! Maybe they should change their name too!
If at any time Barack Obama had proved he is an American citizen the Keyes VS Obama citizenship case would not be before Judge David Carter on July 13,2009 in a California federal court house.
I wish the American people was more interested in upholding the laws of the United States Constitution then Barack Obama.
GeorgetownJD says:
If I’m reading FRCP Rule 15(a) correctly, Taitz amending the pleading (without written permission from the plaintiffs nor leave from the court) implies that she did not serve the original complaint more than 20 days before. Also, another amendment will require such permission or leave. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule15.htm
The Amended Complaint is a jolly read. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-Obama-07-15-09.pdf Why did she put, “Hopefully the buck stops here, in the Supreme Court,” in a pleading before a District Court? Shouldn’t the prayer for relief include some specific relief? Without permission to amend from the defendants or leave from the Court, Taitz will be stuck with this rush-job.
Taitz and Keyes (along with Gary Kreep) previously face-planted into another bit of Rule 15(a) in Keyes v. Bowen. When they tried to amend the complaint, the court returned the doc because an answer was already on file. By that time their prayer for relief was entirely moot; without the ability to amend, the suit was doomed.
That was sarcasm…good sarcasm, because it seems to have got your Obot greet blood boiling…
No it wasn’t, and no it didn’t; sorry.
Although it is amply obvious that you are not a lawyer, thanks for verifying.
Simple Interest says:
July 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Sue,
I know that you don’t like Atty. Taitz, from the majority of your posts….You all clearly underestimate Atty. Taitz because I don’t think that a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year law student or any polished attorney could get the results she’s obtained. The Cards are stacked against her but she seems to be working through the mind fields. Your worst strategy is to continue to underestimate this lawyer and her causes.
Simple Interest, what results has Orly obtained? She hasn’t won a case. Her cases have either been dismissed or will be once she can figure out how to properly serve someone. And if she was such a great legal mind that we would be foolish to underestimate, then why is the infamous disbarred former attorney Charles Lincoln writing her pleadings and briefs? I mean she is such an impressive legal mind that she should have real attorneys willing to assist. Not disbarred ones. She should have research the law and relized that by Major Cook requesting CO status, he would be risking his security clearance. If Orly is the best out there, then the brither movement is not doomed for failure, but to utter ridicule also.
Sue says:
July 16, 2009 at 8:05 am
“how much does it take to properly serve a case?
isn’t this standard operating practice for
experienced attorneys???
come on, i want a real answer hear!
Do attornies frequently miss service??
I guess it does happen a lot, trying to find criminals
on the lam…..no?”
It is my understanding that first year law students are able to accomplish/master service. Judge Carter directed Dr. Taitz to the rule regarding this. All Dr. Taitz had to do was follow the rule. And this is not a criminal case but rather a civil case. The rule clearly spells out who Dr. Taitz needed to serve.
Sue,
I know that you don’t like Atty. Taitz, from the majority of your posts. The instructions from the Judge actually attack the strategy by Obama to get the case dismissed. Obama was not President when the case was filed. He was President Elect. In other words, he was being sued in his civilian capacity, as he had also formally resigned from the Senate. Service was perfected upon him under the Rules but he would not accept service. He wants the protections of the U.S. Justice Department and the Court was not going to play that game—thus he instructed Orly and the U.S. Attorney to leave the Court Room & for Atty. Taitz to serve the U.S. Attorney. He then stated that the case will move on the merits. You all clearly underestimate Atty. Taitz because I don’t think that a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year law student or any polished attorney could get the results she’s obtained. The Cards are stacked against her but she seems to be working through the mind fields. Your worst strategy is to continue to underestimate this lawyer and her causes.
Bob,
That was sarcasm…good sarcasm, because it seems to have got your Obot greet blood boiling…
Cook case already refiled in Florida. Why is Obama resisting providing proof that he is eligible? Where is the birth certificate? The former Marine judge will not be intimidated by O’s thugs. He received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star at Khe Sahn during JFK & LBJ’s Vietnam War.
Cook vs. Good was thrown out for “lack of jurisdiction”
“how much does it take to properly serve a case?
isn’t this standard operating practice for
experienced attorneys???
come on, i want a real answer hear!
Do attornies frequently miss service??
I guess it does happen a lot, trying to find criminals
on the lam…..no?”
It is my understanding that first year law students are able to accomplish/master service. Judge Carter directed Dr. Taitz to the rule regarding this. All Dr. Taitz had to do was follow the rule. And this is not a criminal case but rather a civil case. The rule clearly spells out who Dr. Taitz needed to serve.
As one who does not practice law in the S. CA District
In what jurisdiction(s) do you practice law?
The next event (assuming Orly does not repeatedly amend the complaint) will be a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Of course, we know that there will be at least one other amendment — Orly says so in the First Amended Complaint, which she rushed to file without a RICO claim. Each time a complaint is filed, the 60-day clock for the US’ response is reset. So who knows what date we shall see the motion.
BTW, a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss is a ruling on the merits of the complaint, so dismissal by October or November is not without the realm of possibilities. In fact, I predict it. No standing, no triable claims. Remember, folks, you read it here.
Phil,
Heads up, Orly just published the amended filing for this case on her blog…its an excellent summation of the history of the eligibility dispute…
James says:
July 15, 2009 at 8:58 am
Mr. Obama’s lawyers were not present as I understand,again. Giving the Judge no option but to move the case forward. The U.S. attorney’s present were out of their jurisdiction in respect. Showing the Judge contempt in responce to his court is not a wise decision, as seen. The Court may have to appoint Mr. Obama a public attorney?
*******
So you think the United States Attorney’s Office was out of its jurisdiction in taking the trip up the elevator of the Federal Building in Santa Ana and making an appearance in Judge Carter’s courtroom, huh? James, you might want to crack open that copy of the United States Code, specifically to 28 U.S.C. § 517, and have read:
“Section 517. Interests of United States in pending suits
The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.”
While you’ve got the book open, check out section 518(b) as well:
“Sec. 518. Conduct and argument of cases
(b) When the Attorney General considers it in the interests of
the United States, he may personally conduct and argue any case in
a court of the United States in which the United States is
interested, or he may direct the Solicitor General or any officer
of the Department of Justice to do so.”
Translation: The United States can interject itself into ANY case, at ANY time, in ANY court in the land.
Now, about that business of Obama’s lawyers. If he was not properly served (as Judge Carter found) his lawyers didn’t have to show up. And the way to properly serve the President of the United States or any other federal officer is to ….. okay, now pay really close attention …… serve the complaint on the United States Attorney for the district in which the case is brought. That would be the very same United States Attorney who appeared, by his deputy, in the proceedings on Monday. Get it?
At 7:35 Eastern, Lou Dobbs covered the issue, finally, and even more unbelievably fair-handed than you can believe. He mentioned the Cook challenge to the Obama presidency, but then he said, “If you can believe it, the FEC does NOT check to see if candidates are citizens are require any form of citizenship to run for President of the United States — they leave it up to the states. And, in Barack Obama’s home state of IL, they do not require a form of citizenship to run for state congress or Senator.”
Then he smirked.
They’re finally getting it! When made aware of the facts, people will come to the proper skepticism and appreciate how terribly poorly Obama’s handled this, even if he is legit. The only thing he got wrong was when he mentioned factcheck’s “proof” of his birth and then verbatim read their page quoting state officials who “said that the COLB was legitimate,” something which they never did.
Natural Lawyer,
As one who does not practice law in the S. CA District, I readily found the name of the court reporter, her website and she says requests are filled within 1 week.
However, I agree, she may be swamped with requests on this one…
Phil,
An interesting bird’s eye view, in case you haven’t seen it:
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2009/07/voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-brain-birther-update.html
13 July – Orly had her court date for Keyes v Obama today. And, courtesy of Politijab reader “Wavy Davey”, we have a description of what happened.
“WAVEY DAVEY’S REPORT OF THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING IN KEYES V OBAMA 7/12/09
AS DICTATED TO ME BY BB
I received a call from wavey davey who attended today’s hearing in the Central District of California. The outcome is not what we expected, but it is clear that the judge wants to position the case so that he can rule on the merits.
The judge had stern words for Orly a number of times, although he showed a lot of patience. She kept going off on her litany regarding the hundreds of Social Security numbers, and the judge let her bather on for a while. She also repeatedly asked the Court, “Why are the United States attorneys here? They have no standing, they’re not allowed to be here,” and the Court corrected her on that.
She wanted to talk about the merits of the case and the court said, “Today is not about merits, it is about procedure.”
The court made clear, several times, that he wants this case to go forward on the merits but he did say that proper service had not been achieved on Obama. The U.S. Attorney’s office was represented by DeJute. At first Mr. DeJute said that he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the United States but it was determined that the U.S. Attorney for the district could accept service and so the court ordered Orly and DeJute to confer and to march downstairs together to properly serve the United States Attorney.
Charles Lincoln was present as a “law clerk.”
Wavey davey described him as “short, dumpy, early middle-age, balding.”
Orly continually argued with the judge. The judge responded, “I’m giving you a gift.” When she continued to want to argue the merits and that she had achieved service the judge said, “I think you must be deaf. You aren’t listening. You’re stubborn.”
The judge kept saying that he wanted “what gets this case into court on the merits.”
So what was agreed was that the service would be achieved on the United States Attorney, the United States would have 60 days to respond, and the United States many not ask for any extensions of time.
Orly still wasn’t even satisfied with this result and the judge kept saying, “If you want this expedited I’ll do this, but we need to get this resolved for once and all.”
At one point then Orly said she wanted mediation. The judge’s response was, “What’s to mediate? Either Obama is president or he is not.”
At one point Orly started to read the motion that she filed today. The judge cut her off saying, “I can read.” He noted that he had worked all weekend and would have been available to read this had she filed it earlier. “I’ve seen it. It’s not relevant, you’re wasting your time reading it into the record.”
Waveydavey did note that, as expected, Orly exhibited that she really does not have the socialization skills of others in the legal community. He said it was rather funny, when she first came into the courtroom she was beaming at her Orlybots — there were a number of them there — he was the only Obamabot or Obot there — she had a huge bag stuffed full of things, as well as her purse, and she marched right up beyond the gate and sat down at counsel table.
The courtroom deputy to whom she had not entered her appearance, spoke to her and told her, “It’s not your turn. Go back to the gallery and sit down. Your case will be called,” and Orly was quite flustered because she obviously doesn’t know the custom of a docket call.
Waveydavey also described her as being very pushy and that the judge, on a number of occasions, cut her off. At one point he called for a recess saying, “You need to calm down.”
The judge, several times, indicated that he wants to be able to rule on the merits of the case stating, “This needs to be resolved. We need to get rid of all these doubts.”
Orly indicated that she intends to file a FOIA request. The Court said, “Go ahead, but it would be a waste of time. If we’re going to hear this on the merits there may be rulings, you know, regarding documents.”
END OF REPORT BY WAVEYDAVEY”
Leon Brozyna,
Excellent comment and thanks for it.
-Phil
Naturallawyer,
First, thanks for stopping by and making a comment.
Second, I think that your observation merely touches the surface of this issue. Going over to Dr. Taitz’ blog — http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ — shows that not only is she fielding all sorts of interview requests (the entries are likely only the ones she’s had time to post about) but she is actively encouraging military personnel to file suit on their respective deployment orders.
For the record, while I do not in any way encourage a massive breakdown in discipline of the military, I do encourage people to question authority for the sake of getting to the truth.
Thanks again for the comment.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
As I’ve said from the beginning, I attempt to go after the truth, and I’m independent of anyone else on the Internet. Nevertheless, thank you for the compliment.
Of course. It’s all about the way in which something is said. My opinions, as are yours, are rather well known, to say the least, and I think we all have our biases in the interpretation of what’s going on. However, the important thing is to get to the bottom line, which is that nothing has been decided at this point except to move forward with the case.
-Phil
Yeah Right?!?!?
Orly “wins” another “victory” like when she got Justice Roberts to “agree to hear her case.” LOL!
I can’t believe that you are still reporting on Orly’s NONSENSE!
Orly is giving all Eligibility Lawyers a bad name. Someone needs to get a GAG ORDER on Orly!
joe,
My understanding is that a transcript, if any, will be produced in the coming days.
-Phil
Mr. Obama’s lawyers were not present as I understand,again. Giving the Judge no option but to move the case forward. The U.S. attorney’s present were out of their jurisdiction in respect. Showing the Judge contempt in responce to his court is not a wise decision, as seen. The Court may have to appoint Mr. Obama a public attorney?
When I was reading Dr. Taitz’s blog about the hearing, I was under the impression that Monday’s hearing was just that – a hearing to satisfy the court that proper service had been performed.
I’ll also add that in following her writings/postings over the past few months it appears to me that she has matured as a practicing attorney and her pleadings have become more polished.
My thought for the day. Now it is up to the courts. And with their slow deliberative process it will still be several months before there’s a definitive ruling and that will probably come out of the Supreme Court (if it gets that far). When (and if) that happens, here’s some additional irony – if confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor would probably have to recuse herself from making a ruling, leaving the the decision in the hands of the remaining eight justices. This has all the makings of a major Constitutional crisis. If the court decides against Obama, then wouldn’t everything he’s done be null and void? Think about that for a minute. All laws & executive orders signed, all cabinet & judicial appointments, etc. What about his choice for vice president? If that’s the case, would that then make Nancy Pelosi the new President?
Will the election in 2012 be between Palin & Pelosi? We live in interesting times.
Leon Brozyna
USA, CW2 (Ret)
P. Barnett: having practiced in the Southern Division of the Central District of California, I can tell you it probably will be quite some time before any transcripts of the hearing surface. Unless the court reporter is directed to grant this case priority (which is obviously a possibility), it could take weeks before the court reporter catches up on her backlog, especially for a simple default hearing.
Additionally, the fact that the court will hear the case “on the merits” does not mean it won’t be thrown out on a motion to dismiss. If the plaintiffs fail to provide any requisite evidence or state a legal claim, the case will be dismissed “on the merits.” Further, I highly doubt the judge is going to overlook procedural errors. He’ll play this one by the book, he just isn’t going to allow either side to use a “gotcha” technicality to win–he’ll allow the parties to correct errors when the law permits him the discretion to do so. Hopefully the plaintiff’s counsel gets her act together and serves all defendants properly.
It’s good to see that the judge is going to give this case a fair shake. Reading through the case docket was interesting. It was probably wise to file this case in Orange County.
If the plaintiffs actually win, this will make Bush v. Gore look like a cupcake of a “constitutional crisis.” Everything Obama has done will be called into question, but it will be impossible to “undo” many of his actions. Probably doens’t matter because the VP and speaker of the house are Dems. Still, there will be lawsuits, and query whether Sotomayor can participate in the decision-making since she was appointed by Obama. Could be fun…
Since Hannity has publicly acknolwedged Obama inelgibility, this could what people need to purpeuate Hannity’s acknowledgment of it. Perhaps people need to call the Sean Hannity show ask Hannity about his feelings on the subject now that he has publicly acknowledged it:
To talk with Sean during his show (3-6PM EST)
Call: 800.941.7326
LISTEN LIVE ONLINE MON – FRI 3PM – 6PM EST
http://www.hannity.com/
http://www.hannity.com/contactus.asp
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Sean Hannity on his showed just mentioned the Obama eligiblity issue. Hannity briefly mentioned the new lawsuit filed by Orly over the military officer in GA who is refusing to go to Afganistan because Obama is ineligible to be the POTUS.
Hannity had no comment on the matter and only briefly mentioned it.
Hannity certainly without a doubt is quite aware of the issue.
This is one the first instances where I have actually seen Hannity mention Obama’s elgiblity problem.
Perhaps this is a start with Hannity and maybe we can build on it.
This is definitely a chess game, if it is true that the Cook case was dropped, which was to be heard Thursday, by changing the orders for Cook reporting to duty. Talk about actions speak louder than words. Orly has the rats running for cover!
Obama et al are the artful dodgers, tap dancing and side stepping as fast as they can. It would actually be funny if it were not our country at risk.
Sure hope Judge Carter is not into dancing also. His Wikipedia biography makes him look to be the perfect match for Orly, somebody who is hard to intimidate….his peers call him “King David” and she is definitely our Esther.
It would be quite a surprise if an ex-Marine who is now a judge would not stand up for his country and fellow military officers and comrades and help them resolve this issue peacefully. He and they did not put their lives on the line to have their country mocked.
This whole thing is going to be one great movie some day, if we can get rid of the Hollywood scammers and return decent people to making our movies again!!
“From Russia with Love” has a whole new meaning!
God bless our Lady Liberty, and God Bless America!
Add, “were without merit” to end of second paragraph.
Since Zero cancelled the Executive Order almost immediately upon usurping the presidency, and since the Judge allowed Zero to dodge being served solely as a private citizen, it will be interesting on what basis the case will go forward.
The Judge should have asked the AGs present, how on earth they knew to be present, for if they said the White House Informed us, or we knew beforehand and got White House approval, they would have conceded that the purpose of the service had been achieved and that their objections, which were offered only to change the nature of the case as one vs. a private citizen to one vs. the president and USA, so as to claim soverign immunity and marshal the same, you dont have standing, arguments as they have done vs. Mario Apuzzo.
The only hope seems to be, if the judge consideres the merits and dismisses claims about not having standing and soverign immunity, and gets to the heart of the matter, the proof of eligibility, which as Orly rightly attempted to argue in her petition for motion of declaratory sentence (Phil you need to include that) that a FOIA request for this information is only fair under the terms of the EO, to show Zero had legitimate authority to cancel it…
Well, Phil– you’ve surprised me. You actually did an excellent job of gathering information from various sources before posting, and you seem to have gotten the gist of what happened in court and its significance pretty clear. So good job on this report.
(Technically, in legal terms, I’d explain the outcome a little differently — but you seem to have the “what it all means” part right. I anticipate that sometime in the next 60 days the US Attorney for the Central District of California will file a motion to dismiss, probably in September, and a ruling on that will come in late October or early November.)
P. Barnett,
Given that you are the author of the “Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz” blogosphere blast, it’s understandable that you are proprietary about your version. Phil, however, is wise not to trust anyone’s recollection and withhold judgment until the official transcript of the hearing is released. An accurate record of what Judge Carter actually stated will clarify all doubts.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I wish this were true, but from what I’ve seen, Apuzzo seems like he has a case that way more likely to be fruitful. Wait another 60 days for a defense motion doesn’t sounds like much ground to me, especially on heresay from Taitz. She’s like Berg, they tout and tout, but (even if they are right) their prospects don’t match their high-filutin’ words.
Barack Hussein Obamahdinejihad is NOT “of the country” of the United States of America, as his father was a “foreigner”…
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.
[420] I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1,
I have a couple of points to bring out.
1. The US Attorney who did not represent Obama argues that the service was faulty. This is basically admitting that they screwed up and missed the case. In other words, lawyers don’t disregard a complaint because they think the service was faulty. They would never take the chance that a Judge might feel the same way. It is my understanding that the mail clerk was “sent down” to receive the complaint service. So in Orly’s defense, a low paid person is handing another low paid person to accept an important document and the service processor did what she could to get her job done. She did not have the authority to demand a lawyer come down and receive service. I do not know if Obama’s lawyers failed to show. If they showed, I assume they would have filed a motion to dismiss at the time.
2. The court has rejected the idea that Obama was served as an individual.
3. The US Attorney will file a motion to dismiss. They can do a lot of copying and pasting there. And then we will see how the Judge feels about hearing the merits.
4. If the Judge grants discovery, it will not matter if he is overturned on appeal.
So I think this case is going forward like the others except for the initial bump in the road. I am not encouraged by anything that either side said the Judge said.
There may not be any transcript. Court Reporters are not in every Court room unless requested. (beware) And who is going to pay for it, at 5 bucks a page, double spaced?
To follow up on my last post Orly may have more issues than she thought about. As noted in regards to her filings in the Keyes v. Obama and Cook v. Good cases, the quality of the work had improved. Everyone suspected that Orly had some help because the other filings she had filled out herself were elementary at best. Anyway it seems like she has become associated with a guy by the name of Dr. Charles Lincoln. And if some question if he was involved, on the last page of the Motion for Entry and final Judgement that Orly had filed in July 12.
Dr. Charles Lincoln is a convicted felon, disbarred in Florida and California and gave up his license in TX to avoid prosecution. However unlike Dr. Ron Polarik, we can actually look at his background. These are the so called “patriots” of the birther movement. A Communist semi literate attorney and a disbarred convicted felon. These are the defenders of our Constitution.
Anyway according to the state of CA, no member of the bar is allowed to associate or employ in anyway with a disbarred former member. However I am sure her supporters will attempt to spin this in some positive way.
Rule 1-311 Employment of Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, or Involuntarily Inactive Member.
(A) For purposes of this rule:
(1) “Employ” means to engage the services of another, including employees, agents, independent contractors and consultants, regardless of whether any compensation is paid;
(2) “Involuntarily inactive member” means a member who is ineligible to practice law as a result of action taken pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6007, 6203(c), or California Rule of Court 9.31; and
(3) “Resigned member” means a member who has resigned from the State Bar while disciplinary charges are pending.
(B) A member shall not employ, associate professionally with, or aid a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform the following on behalf of the member’s client:
(1) Render legal consultation or advice to the client;
(2) Appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer;
(3) Appear as a representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter;
(4) Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of the client with third parties;
(5) Receive, disburse or otherwise handle the client’s funds; or
(6) Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.
(C) A member may employ, associate professionally with, or aid a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform research, drafting or clerical activities, including but not limited to:
(1) Legal work of a preparatory nature, such as legal research, the assemblage of data and other necessary information, drafting of pleadings, briefs, and other similar documents;
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Current_Rules.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules/Rules%20of%20Professional%20Conduct&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/RPC_Current-Rules-1-311.html
how much does it take to properly serve a case?
isn’t this standard operating practice for
experienced attorneys???
come on, i want a real answer hear!
Do attornies frequently miss service??
I guess it does happen a lot, trying to find criminals
on the lam…..no?
P. Barnett says:
July 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“I trust Orly’s account more that this nameless attorney you reference.. I guess we’ll see what the judge said when the transchripts come out.”
Trusting Orly’s account is the scary part. You are one of the few, willing to trust the word of an unaccredited lawyer who has never won a case. Interesting. President Obama, Harvard Law school and president of the law review. Orly, Taft Online Law school and Culinary institute. OK, the Culinary institute is a fabrication.
According to Orly, the judge said in the courtroom the case will move forward on the merits to make a legal determination as to the Constitutional eligibility/ineligibiity of Obama. That would mean, that it would NOT be thrown out on technicalities, requests to dismiss, etc.
What you fail to realize that the hearing yesterday was just a procedural one. Orly tried to serve President Obama as an individual. The judge ruled in favor of the President and agreed that there was not proper service. The judge didn’t want the case to be hung up for months on whether or not proper service was achieved, so he allowed Orly to serve the US Attorney directly. The allows the case to continue and Judge Carter can now rule. He is still able to dismiss the case if he think there is a lack of evidence. Which seeing how Orly is using the multiple SS numbers, the infamous travel ban, and Polarik’s so called affidavit, will probably happen as soon as the US Attorny files the motion to dismiss. Since Obama is the President, he is represented by the Justice Department.
From the LA Times…
“At a previous hearing, Carter had ruled that Taitz had not properly served the case on Obama. In Monday’s hearing, both Taitz and DeJute tried to prematurely argue the merits of the case. Carter, a former marine, told both parties that the case could easily be tied up for months or another year on procedural technicalities. A better approach would be for Taitz just to file the paperwork so that the case could proceed without more delays, the judge said.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/opponents-of-barack-obamas-presidency-claim-small-court-victory.html
Phil,
In Re, Bush v. Gore has set the precedence for this case to be heard on the merits. In this case, the case will be go to trial on the merits and the standing issue and other defenses that have been successful in the past will not be applicable in this case, because of Dr. Keyes and the others appearance on the State of California ballot. If Dr. Taitz would have simply filed a strong complaint, instead of the Mandamus approach, we might have a ruling that would require that EVERY Elected Officials credentials are subject and will be subjected to scrutiny, verification, and validation. I know that mine were!!!!! For people who do not want to have qualifications challenged, Obama himself won his 1st IL State Senatorial Election by CHALLENGING his opponents’ credentials and filing papers, ultimately having them removed from the ballot all together. It’s amazing that so many people are defending him in this instance. If he is eligible, GREAT…LET’s do great things,,,,but if he is not, he needs to be removed from the White House. The Office of the President has the most stringent requirement, even above Supreme Court Justice, but the lower officers are subjected to more substantive scrutiny, at least in this instance.
I trust Orly’s account more that this nameless attorney you reference.. I guess we’ll see what the judge said when the transchripts come out.
According to Orly, the judge said in the courtroom the case will move forward on the merits to make a legal determination as to the Constitutional eligibility/ineligibiity of Obama. That would mean, that it would NOT be thrown out on technicalities, requests to dismiss, etc.
Phil, heads up. That statement of interest was filed before the hearing, not “in response to the hearing” as if it were after the hearing. Might confuse someone saying “in response to the hearing.”