web analytics
≡ Menu

Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has release a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer’s arguments.

{ 65 comments… add one }
  • pocketrocketbug October 22, 2009, 8:51 am

    MaryAnnH – I find it ironic that you warn me about the risk of being sued for libel, slander, and defamation for my factual comments regarding Dr. Taitz while accepting, without proof, her lies, slander, libel, and defamation of Obama, Judge Land, and others.

    I don't know why you'd pretend that the Kenyan "birth certificates" submitted by Dr. Taitz have not been debunked. Search Bomford certificate….As to Lucas Smith…he's a convicted forger and the videos that he alleges were taken in Kenya seem to be made in the Dominican Republic. BTW, he didn't spell the physican's name correctly on his forgery.

    39 SSN's all connected with Obama? The McCain and Clinton campaign just let that slide, eh? As my granddaughter would say, "Get real".

    Charles Lincoln, Dr. Taitz's "clerk".



    Ambassador Keyes has nothing to worry about in regard to my public comments on this blog. He should be concerned about the lies told by his lawyer and well meaning supporters, on his behalf.

  • Derek P. October 17, 2009, 4:22 am

    "How do you know the Kenyan BCs are fakes? How do you know that the list of SSN numbers are false? Do you have concrete proof? If so, produce it." (Mary Ann)

    You're right Mary Ann. We don't know if the Kenyan birth certificates and the list of social security numbers are fake or legitimate. We just don't know.

    So, as for me, I'll say this – when a Court accepts that evidence as being legitimate, then I will too.

  • Derek P. October 17, 2009, 3:58 am

    "Assault on our first amendment rights to criticize idiot judges, such as Federal judge Robertson in DC. This judge doesn't believe in the rule of law and rule of evidence."

    "Every decent American should demand removing this judge of the bench immediately. He is a disgrace for the legal profession."

    (Dr. Orly Taitz)

    Defamation? Indeed. But not on my part.

  • MaryAnnH October 17, 2009, 12:19 am

    "Why am I criticizing Dr. Taitz? I respect Ambassador Keyes and view him as true conservative." (Pocket Rocket)

    IF you respect Ambassador Keyes as much as you say, you'd quit slamming his attorney in a public forum.

    "I guess what Judge Land had to say qualifies as defamation as well." (Derek P.)

    No, Judge Land is just stupid–and I hope he has to eat his $20,000 sanction, along with his robe!

  • Mary Ann October 15, 2009, 4:10 pm

    Pocket Rocket said: "Dr. Taitz has submitted fake documents as evidence. She has made contradictory statements and blatant false claims in court and in the media." (by pocketrocketbug)

    Derek P. said: "Dr. Taitz has submitted fake documents as evidence." (pocketrocketbug)
    To support the allegations that have been made, that is (apparently) the only course of action that is available. False discovery." (by Derek P.)

    If either of you have any hard evidence for your claims, I suggest you produce it or shut up. I'm not talking about all the petty things of which you harang, I am talking about making public accusations regarding what would is considered bases for libel, slander and defamation of character.

    Your petty whines about typing mistakes and minor procedural mistakes are a matter of personal perception. Those mistakes (made by other attorneys in every jurisdiction) are nothing to get excited about.

    Pocket Rocket said: "You can easily find the fake Kenyan birth certificates, the list of SSN numbers falsely attributed to Obama, etc."

    How do you know the Kenyan BCs are fakes? How do you know that the list of SSN numbers are false? Do you have concrete proof? If so, produce it. Otherwise, shut up before you find yourself enmeshed in a lawsuit yourself.

  • Derek P. October 15, 2009, 4:04 pm

    "To DerekP & PocketRocket: I suggest that you have verifiable, documented evidence of the allegation you make, for what you say qualifies as defamation. If you have proof, bring it on and enlighten us all. If not, then I suggest you keep silent until such proof is obtained." (MaryAnnH)


    I guess what Judge Land had to say qualifies as defamation as well.

  • pocketrocketbug October 15, 2009, 8:29 am

    Chiu Chunling – "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"
    Lewis Carroll

    MaryAnnH – Are you disputing any of the factual (not opinion) allegations that I've made about Dr. Taitz's conduct?

    Court Documents involving Dr. Orly Taitz – You can easily find the fake Kenyan birth certificates, the list of SSN numbers falsely attributed to Obama, etc. She submits them in most of her filings.


    Dr. Taitz website – She's quite open in making comments about Judge Land, Judge Carter, etc.


  • MaryAnnH October 13, 2009, 11:44 pm

    Chiu Chunling, I read your comments with interest each time I come across them. For an evil person (tongue in cheek), you are a really nice person…and reasoned, updated on the issues, and you know your Constitution pretty well. You also know your "circle of authority," those things which are within your power to change, and those things which are not.

    PocketRocket, on the other hand, has no clear idea of his circle of authority. Whom Dr. Keyes chooses to represent his legal interests is entirely up to him, and him alone. It doesn't matter how bad you think Orly Taitz is, or how incompetent, replacing her is NOT your decision. If you really want to advise Dr. Keyes in this area, it would be better done in private, not in a public forum such as this one.

    My opinion is that, with the exception of a few hiccups, Barnett vs. Obama has been prosecuted in an adequate manner. If you are so sure that you could do better, perhaps you should volunteer your time doing legal research to help.

    To DerekP & PocketRocket: I suggest that you have verifiable, documented evidence of the allegation you make, for what you say qualifies as defamation. If you have proof, bring it on and enlighten us all. If not, then I suggest you keep silent until such proof is obtained.

  • chiu_chunling October 13, 2009, 9:49 am

    I do not pray for Obama. I can imagine praying that he be a good President, but I do not, as faith is an essential component of prayer. It would be like praying for it to rain lollipops…except I might actually decide to pray for something like that. As far as I have been able to determine, he has nothing to do with me, and I nothing to do with him. He is outside of my jurisdiction, so to speak.

    I don't even pray that he'll be removed from office, though of course I do occasionally pray that those who seek to preserve the Constitution will be strengthened and protected. Maybe I shouldn't be mentioning that here…learning that evil persons pray for you may not be the most confidence building experience. Still, one aspect of my evil is that I so rarely let considerations of what I should do affect what I actually do.

    It's not like I'm deliberately picking evil…that's just what happens sometimes when you don't choose good. Go figure.

  • Derek P. October 13, 2009, 1:31 am

    "Dr. Taitz has submitted fake documents as evidence." (pocketrocketbug)

    To support the allegations that have been made, that is (apparently) the only course of action that is available. False discovery.

  • pocketrocketbug October 12, 2009, 2:53 pm

    MaryAnnH – A "legal professional" should be able to understand the difficulty that plaintiffs are facing in trying to have a US court determine that the President of the United States is ineligible to hold office. If you wish to assert that issues related to jurisdiction, standing, justicability, proper venue, and the political question doctrine constitute "spurious grounds", I'd like to see your detailed legal opinion, with case law supporting your claims.

    Why am I criticizing Dr. Taitz? I respect Ambassador Keyes and view him as true conservative.

    I have had growing concerns about the conduct of Dr. Taitz, as Ambassador Keyes attorney, and in regard to her statements and actions in other eligibility cases. Dr. Taitz has submitted fake documents as evidence. She has made contradictory statements and blatant false claims in court and in the media. She has failed to file documents correctly or in a timely manner. She has made allegations that federal judges have engaged in criminal conduct. Her court clerk, Mr. Lincoln, is a disbarred lawyer. How much evidence do you need before you develop a clear opinion about an attorney's competance and performance?

    I support and defend our US Constitution. Obama is the President of the United States. If he engaged in fraud and is ineligible for this office, he must be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.

    Alternatively, an interested party could test quo warranto in the DC District Court, without assistance of the Attorney General (Holder). There is some doubt as to whether this applies to the office of the President of the United States. The case would need to go to SCOTUS.


    As to the level of power and evil of the man in the White House, I see no evidence that it's any more or less than it has been in decades. I pray for this President.


  • MaryAnnH October 12, 2009, 4:20 am

    POCKET ROCKET: Regarding "painful strings" … what is YOUR explanation for the various courts summarily dismissing the many lawsuits that have been filed thus far? Especially on such spurious grounds? I don't think you appreciate the power and evil of the current resident of the people's White House.

    As for your Orly quote…did you read the last sentence? "We might need to ask for clarification, but at FIRST GLANCE it looks like a go." I believe I have discussed the Barnett v. Obama lawsuit to the greatest extent that I can without giving the opposition a strategy to oppose us.

    I was wrong about the summary judgment deadlines…they were mentioned in a prior minute order, I believe perhaps 09-08-09…I do not have the docket sheet in front of me at this moment. I believe it is unfortunate that Judge Carter made those tentative dates final (ECF maintenance was finished late Saturday, and I got in early on Sunday). I also believe it is unfortunate that Judge Carter so quickly denied Orly's request for relief from stay. Those are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

    May I ask what your purpose is in pointing out Orly's errors? Is this constructive criticism? Just curious.

  • pocketrocketbug October 11, 2009, 7:24 pm

    MaryAnnH – Dr. Taitz did misinterpret Judge Carter's order. I don't see how you spin it otherwise.

    Here's what she posted on her blog.

    "Looks like it’s a go with the eligibility trial"

    "I just got an order from judge Carter. He does not say outright that the motion to dismiss, but he says that the dates for trial are final. We might need to ask for the clarification, but from the first glance it looks like a go."

    Dr. Orly Taitz


    Updated Link to Judge Carter's ruling


    BTW, suggesting that someone may pull very painful strings to get Judge Carter to change his opinion, is to accuse Judge Carter of judicial misconduct if he fails to report such attempts or responds to them.

  • Tamara October 11, 2009, 1:04 pm

    I think so many are forgetting that even if the cirtificate showes he was born in Hawaii, that it is the president being set that people "the entire public must vet a man that the coursts had previously stated we could not view his vital and college information!

    And that is not right!

    Keep going!

  • MaryAnnH October 10, 2009, 10:38 pm

    POCKET ROCKET: I attempted to access the link you provided. This is the message I received:

    "The document 'KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA – 83 – MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING EX PARTE' has been deleted"

  • MaryAnnH October 10, 2009, 10:36 pm

    POCKET ROCKET: Dr. Taitz made no misinterpretation of the Judge's minute order. The setting of MSJ deadlines was a wide invitation to request the stay of discovery be lifted. Your reading and interpretation of the minute order is simply that–your reading and interpretation. You have every right to think the request relief from stay was unwise. The rest of us have every right to think it was wise.

    Obama's lawyers would have said "nuts" to any suggestion, no matter whether that right was warranted or not.

    What makes you think that they would cooperate and follow the rules? Have they been cooperative thus far? Let's see…sealed school records, college records, medical records, passport records, birth certificate. Seems to me that their track record isn't very trustworthy.

  • pocketrocketbug October 10, 2009, 9:24 am

    MaryAnnH – I'm not attorney. I've never pretended to be a lawyer and while I've shared my opinion (analysis)of the case involving Ambassador Keyes and Obama, I don't recall giving any legal advice. Suggesting that someone get a second opinion isn't giving legal advice, IMO.

    I've found the legal documents posted at SCRIBD to be accurate, ie identical to those posted on PACER.

    Dr. Taitz had the "right" to request that the stay on discovery be lifted but it was probably unwise of her to do so, given that Judge Carter's ruling on the MTD is forthcoming. Dr. Taitz was clearly mistaken in claiming that the "Minute Order" was a ruling from Judge Carter to allow her to proceed with discovery. That's why Obama's lawyers first responded with "NUTS" to her clerk's request. It's also why Judge Carter quickly denied her subsequent request.


  • pocketrocketbug October 10, 2009, 9:14 am

    gilbertabrett – You are sooo right about the validity of information on the internet. I try to avoid citing anything but sources which are authoritative and still get it wrong sometimes. My apologies for misunderstanding your use of the word "daft" with respect to Ambassador Keyes. I don't fault him for trusting his lawyer. It may be a good time for him to get a "second opinion".

    No government hack can stop us from voicing our faith in the LORD. HIS will be done. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen.

  • MaryAnnH October 9, 2009, 11:45 pm

    POCKET ROCKET: Do you have a law degree? I notice that you are dispensing an awful lot of legal advice and analysis, and was curious as to what level of expert you claim to be on this issue.

    As a legal professional myself, Dr. Taitz' lack of proper decorum makes me nervous, but it doesn't mean she is an incompetent professional. Unorthodox, yes, but as yet that does not equal incompetent, unless they've changed the definition since I last looked. As the ECF site is unavailable due to maintenance this weekend, I am unable to verify any of the claims made (in posts above) regarding the denial of Dr. Taitz' request for relief from stay of discovery.

    However, I have read the "minute order" entered by Judge Carter's staff late Monday afternoon (remember the hearing was in the morning). In that Order, Judge Carter set a briefing schedule for Motion(s) for Summary Judgment.

    In U.S. District Courts (or even state courts, for that matter), it is not uncommon for a Judge to delay ruling upon a Motion to Dismiss, preferring instead to wait until more substantive dispositive motions are filed. The first thing any defendant does in a civil case is file a Motion to Dismiss based upon sometimes totally imaginary grounds. Obama's MTD was such a document, and the Judge should not have granted it. I think his indication (by setting the MSJ schedule) of a preference to rule on a MSJ instead of a MTD is every bit a reasonable decision.

    As I recall, the motion for limited stay of discovery only asked for relief until Oct. 5, the date of the hearing on the MTD. When I checked the docket yesterday, there was no order from the Judge concerning Dr. Taiz' request. The public record is clear that Defendants' asked for only a LIMITED stay of discovery.

    Unless the defendants requested an additional stay of discovery, I would think the Judge would be hard pressed to deny her request. Particularly when you consider that he just scheduled the plaintiffs' MSJ deadline for early November–a mere 30 days away. In my opinion, the Judge would commit a travesty of justice IF he ordered indefinite stay of discovery. Without discovery neither party has a solid base for summary judgment motions.

    IF this is really what has happened, then our Chicago Thug in Chief has managed to pull some very painful strings. I still believe Judge Carter to be no-nonsense Marine.

    So, in sum, the Minute Order simply established MSJ dates that had here-to-fore not been set. Dr. Taitz rightfully requested relief from stay. IF Judge Carter denied that request, Dr. Taitz has every right to ask for reconsideration, or any other relief provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California (Southern Division).

  • gilbertabrett October 9, 2009, 11:33 pm

    Well there I have to agree with you my friend. But, as I have commented SEVERAL times, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get reliable information on the internet. Or maybe I do not know WHERE to look? It is frustrating that our so-called reputable news sources in this country will NOT follow this story – even if it was just for the sensationalism you would think one of these greedy hounds would have latched onto the bone by now…

    I am just hungry for information, that's all. I wish I had the money to travel to these places and see things first hand.

    Oh, by the way, I never intimated that Dr. Keyes was daft. Quite the opposite. I do not always agree with him, but unlike a lot of conservative thinking people in this country I have learned that even within your own family you have to give and take – much more so those you agree with on how the government should run according to our Constitution.

    Unfortunately, most people never realized that there was a political rift started long ago in our country – probably about the time Madalyn Murray O'Hair started running her mouth. People continue to kick GOD out of everything in our country AND ALLOW our "representatives" in ALL areas of government to do the same. We are now beginning to reap at home what our parents allowed to be sown. And no, I am NOT a fan of Jeremiah Wright…

  • pocketrocketbug October 9, 2009, 8:22 am

    gilbertabrett – First, I don't know why you'd consider Ambassador Keyes to be "daft" just because his lawyer makes a false claim regarding a court communication. He trusted his attorney. I am not concerned about Dr. Taitz's "foolish" errors as these can be fixed in the court process. It is clear that Judge Carter is making every effort to be fair and not allow technicalities to be used to stop the process. I do judge a tree by its fruit. Dr. Taitz has presented contradictory information to the courts of Judge Carter and Judge Land. She has presented documents such as a Kenyan COB to courts without verifying them as authentic.

    I pray that God will act so that the truth regarding Obama's natural born citizenship is revealed, quickly, clearly, and indisputably. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

  • D'Ann October 9, 2009, 7:23 am

    Alan Keyes, Thank you! The truth will prevail! God is watching over all of us and the power of God will prevail in uncovering this fraud – Obama. Thank you again Alan Keyes and all the lawyers and judges and support people. God Bless you all.

  • Dawg_em October 9, 2009, 6:53 am

    The way I see it many of us are excited to see this wasn't dismissed outright like other attempts to get to the truth.

    Others are being very cautious because there is still time to put the brakes on.

    Still, I'm hopeful the truth will win out. But then, this could just be a part of the judgement we as a nation so richly deserve.

  • gilbertabrett October 8, 2009, 11:47 pm

    Well do you Pocket? We are waiting… notice the time and date? No answer? I read posts on the above links and found nothing wrong or out of order. You do realize we are talking about the US government AND the slickest mack daddy in history? She is right to cover every base and then some. And little should any worry who consider Dr. Taitz incompetent. If you think that, then remember GOD uses the foolish to confound the wise. HE also is not mocked. I do not think Dr. Keyes would be so daft as to retain her after all this time if he were not confident of her abilities – he ain't no dummy… AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE PRAYING FOR THIS TO SUCCEED!!!

  • faith.praxis October 8, 2009, 4:57 pm

    Well, with all due respect, if the Judge in this matter has in fact "released a statement" to the effect stated, where was it released to? i.e., what media source? And why wasn't it also included in this particular posting on this Blog as an attachment or some other acceptable way i.e., URL etc??

    Hoping for justice finally!

  • pocketrocketbug October 8, 2009, 4:30 pm

    Ted – "The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’
    Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery. Pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the stay of discovery shall remain in place. See Dkt. 66. Should the discovery period be insufficient given the scheduling order in place, the partiesmay file for an extension of the discovery period."


  • pocketrocketbug October 8, 2009, 1:09 pm

    Sam – I thought I posted a response so forgive me if this is a duplicate. I believe that Ambassador Keyes case is governed by the statute of limitations of the State of California. There is an allegation that Obama engaged in fraud in claiming he is a natural born citizen in the 2008 election. If I'm not mistaken, the statute of limitations for fraud in CA is 3 years. This case was filed in a timely manner.

  • pocketrocketbug October 8, 2009, 1:04 pm

    Sam C. – While this is a federal case, the statute of limitations which applies will be governed by the State of California, if I'm not mistaken. There is an allegation that Obama engaged in fraud by claiming status as a natural born citizen. The California Statute of limitations for fraud is 3 years. This case has been filed well within the acceptable time period.

  • Sam October 8, 2009, 11:36 am


    Do you know what the statute of limitations for this case is ? What is the time limit for a civil case of this sort ?

    Thank you very much !
    Sam C.
    Canadian Citizen
    Software Programmer !!

  • pocketrocketbug October 8, 2009, 11:10 am

    While it seems that anyone who tries to bring facts into view is labeled an "OBOT", I suggest that Ambassador Keyes look at Dr. Taitz most recent filing to Judge Carter. Does anyone here think that a Judge responds well to prodding to move more "quickly"?


    e-mail exchange between Dr. Taitz's clerk and Obama's lawyers.

    Ambassador Keyes is not being well served by Dr. Taitz, in this case, IMHO.

  • Sam October 8, 2009, 3:12 am


    Everything you said is true.

    Yet there are shades of gray for the Electronic Voting systems. There are solutions which inherently promote the ability for fraud to take place, and then there are better solutions which have in place checks and balances where multiple parties are in place to verify counts.

    Also, for those who know software, having the source code freely visible by the public is a NECESSITY for public voting software.

    All the best !
    Sam C.
    Canadian Citizen
    Software Programmer !!

  • Sam October 8, 2009, 3:03 am

    With regards to the Motion to Dismiss, there seems to be a clear legal remedy, that is if Obama is deemed not an eligible candidate, then some amount of funds (should be over $75000 in order to avoid losing subject-matter jurisdiction) would be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff.

    For those interested, here is what I read:

    All the best!
    Sam C.
    Canadian Citizen
    Software Programmer !!

  • chiu_chunling October 8, 2009, 2:59 am

    Ultimately, there is no way to absolutely prevent vote fraud without compromising the secret ballot. You can have a secret ballot that is open to fraud, or you can have an open ballot which can be made completely honest.

    But yes, the issue of electronic voting machines is problematic. I remember how the left wailed about them…and then shut up about it all at once. Not exactly confidence inspiring.

  • Sam October 8, 2009, 2:41 am

    Regarding Pocket's concern over the interlocutory
    appeal. These appeals normally wait until the trial has concluded, unless in this case the judge does not have "personal jurisdiction" over Obama.

    General jurisdiction may nullify the "personal jurisdiction" appeal in this case.

    For those curious here are the links I read:

    All the best!
    Sam C.
    Canadian Citizen
    Software Programmer !!

  • Jackie Smith October 8, 2009, 2:09 am

    TED….you are right on guy…..the OBOTS here are trying to spread their propaganda and are just spin doctors trying to misdirect the weak!!! Keep up the great work TED!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Sam October 8, 2009, 1:42 am

    I remember hearing about the fact that a software company from
    Venezuela was supplying the software for the electronic voting booths
    in the USA. That was shocking to me after realizing what Chavez is like.

    Also with so many HOLLYWOOD people visiting Chavez and paying respect to him,
    it would not surprise me that the LEFTists would be bringing in THEIR leader
    using this software to fraudulently shift the votes.



    Thank you very much,
    Sam C.
    Canadian Citizen,
    Software Programmer !!

  • Ted October 7, 2009, 11:33 pm


    Judge Carter's case is not necessarily to eject Obama (as under quo warranto). The case is about candidate Keyes vs. candidate Obama, alleging candidate Obama was inelligible to run. Keyes could recover some damages; and let Obama stay in office (if anyone would still want him) after that!

  • Phillip October 7, 2009, 10:36 pm

    Judge Carter does not have subject matter jurdiction for Quo Warranto in Barnet vs Obama.

  • Momof9 October 7, 2009, 8:56 pm

    May God Almighty make known the truth to us concerning Barack Obama! May he bless Orly in her attempt to make that truth known, and may he silence the derogatory voices who could care less about our Freedoms and the blood that was spilled to give us our Constitution and our democratic REPUBLIC! In Jesus' name I ask it. Amen.

  • Stephen October 7, 2009, 8:12 pm

    Thank God somebody will finally listen to the truth.

  • gilbertabrett October 7, 2009, 8:08 pm

    No these people don't care! We are too busy murdering our posterity, giving their future to illegal aliens and terrorists and worshiping Beyonces, Brittanys, Jon & Kates and David Lettermans. We are not even a SHADOW fo what we used to be. It is sad…

    I cannot even get a straight answer on what is going on with this case against a man supposedly named Obama… who is supposedly OUR president.

    What is one to do?

  • pbunyon October 7, 2009, 7:41 pm

    Well, there is some good news anyways! Maybe we'll get another good surprise in the near future.

    God Bless,

  • shadowfourever October 7, 2009, 6:22 pm

    I am really curious as to why those that still back this man posing as our President don't wonder why he doesn't just end this whole charade and cough up the papers? Don't you find it weird at all that his kindergarten admission papers disappeared (his were the only ones missing), that his long form can not be reached for comment, that his school records are sealed, passport info – nada, college transcripts (nope)???? This man is invisible and running our country – doesn't that scare you at all? Do any of you have children??? Do you care?

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 5:32 pm

    Ted…Since you've not proven me wrong, once, let alone 3 times, I'll let the other readers make the determination of fact….You don't get to referee in the same game where you're playing.

    What you don't seem to understand is that Judge Carter has not ruled on the MTD and has not issued any order that would allow discovery to proceed. Are you unwilling to examine the actual document which Dr. Taitz incorrectly deemed to state that the case is moving forward, per Judge Carter?

    "Cause called and counsel state their appearances. Argument by counsel. Motion taken
    under submission."


    Reportedly, the Obama lawyers responded with "Nuts" to a request from Dr. Taitz clerk to move to discovery.

  • Ted October 7, 2009, 5:07 pm

    wrong again pocket

    Since the discretion is in the trial court judge, no way can Judge Carter be forced to stay the discovery by virtue of the pending Motion to Dismiss!

  • chiu_chunling October 7, 2009, 4:49 pm

    Kinda the whole point of lawyering is that the interpretation of the law depends on what is most beneficial to your client. In that respect, one can hardly expect any remotely honest person to be a really top-flight lawyer. As it applies to the legal process, it means that nothing is really how things are decided unless neither side can see how doing things differently would be to their advantage.

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 4:47 pm

    Ted….Of course, I could be wrong but I did say "likely" win. They could lose the interloculatory appeal but they'd likely get a stay on discovery until the appeal decision was made OR Judge Carter ruled on the MTD, which would restart the clock, in layman's terms.

    Remember, this is the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal appeals court in the country.

  • MIDDLE CLASS GUY October 7, 2009, 4:35 pm

    I am not a lawyer. I did some reading yesterday. Everything I read said that you cannot appeal a denial of a motion to dismiss. All appeals must be made after a summary judgement is made on the merits of the case in chief. Any lawyers out there know the answer?

  • Ted October 7, 2009, 4:33 pm

    wrong again pocket

    There is no absolute right to a stay of discovery, even where a case dispositive motion has been filed. Rather, the grant of such a request is within the discretion of the trial court.

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 4:18 pm

    Ted…The Magistrate Judge Nakazato, who Dr. Taitz tried, unsuccessfully, to remove, will handle any discovery which occurs if the case moves forward. If Discovery is ordered, the Obama lawyers will file an interloculatory appeal on that issue and likely win if Judge Carter hasn't ruled on MTD. They'd do so also if Judge Carter dismisses the MTD but wouldn't be able to make the case that they're "waiting" for Judge Carter's ruling.

  • Ted October 7, 2009, 4:08 pm

    What would preclude Judge Carter from proceedig with discovery and trial, as he appears to be doing, without ruling one way or the other on the Motion to Dismiss? (That way, he keeps his options open depending upon how things develop and there's nothing for Team Obama to delay and appeal in the interim.)

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 4:05 pm

    aubrey..Leftists like Chavez. I've never been mistaken for a leftist in my life and don't see how you'd make such a comment from reading the comments that I posted ..Why do you think the document was dated October 5, 2009? Think clerks minutes.

    Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 81 Filed 10/05/2009 Page 1 of 1

  • aubrey. October 7, 2009, 3:49 pm

    Here you go Pocket….you are Ripe for the Chavez regime….why not think of moving to Venezuela???

    by John Charlton

    (Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.

    The order, reads as follows:

    On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.

    Case Management dates are as follows:

    Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
    File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
    Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
    Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
    Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
    Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Bubba B. Brownbag, IV October 7, 2009, 3:46 pm

    If Taitz was "mistaken" in her "premature" comments to Keyes in this critically important aspect of the case – as further research confirms she was – that might cause one to wonder just what sort of Plaintiff representation Keyes et al is receiving from Taitz? On what other element(s) of the case was/is/will be Taitz "mistaken" and "premature"? Perhaps "Andrew the Obit Troll" has a valid point when he disparagingly questioned Taitz capabilities? Just askin'… and thinkin'…

  • Marshwiggle October 7, 2009, 3:31 pm

    YAY! 🙂

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 3:26 pm

    Pardon me for repeating content of a prior message. Dr. Taitz seems to have confused the clerk's minutes of the 10/5/09 hearing and related finalization of tentative dates with a decision by Judge Carter. The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss. These "final" dates will be moot if the MTD is granted. I pray that the Lord guides Judge Carter to the right decision and believe in my heart that HE will.

  • Bubba B. Brownbag, IV October 7, 2009, 3:20 pm

    VERY ENCOURAGING NEWS!! Still looking for Judge Carter's "statement" for the source.


  • Greg Goss October 7, 2009, 3:15 pm

    I have always said when asked, and this goes back to the first time he ran for POTUS, "Would you vote for a black man for POTUS?" and my answer was always yes, with Alan Keyes in mind. You are a great American sir, thank you for all you have and will do.

  • pocketrocketbug October 7, 2009, 3:12 pm

    Dr. Taitz was mistaken and premature, in her report to Ambassador Keyes. The minutes posted to pacer were dated 10/5/09 and confirmed as "final" the tentative scheduled hearing dates. No decision has been made regarding the Motion to Dismiss.

  • herseychurchpastor October 7, 2009, 3:05 pm

    This is welcome news. I wonder if it will prompt the pretender to resign rather than enduring a protracted trial he's certain to lose. We own a debt of gratitude to Judge Carter and to Ambassador Keyes for their steadfastness.

  • Greg Goss October 7, 2009, 2:33 pm

    Ted, Andrew will have no place to troll soon….Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, I can't stop laughing…Ha Ha Ha…

  • infrared October 7, 2009, 2:26 pm

    Great Job! Keep up the good work Mr. Keyes! The Lord is with you!!!

  • Ted October 7, 2009, 2:15 pm

    Andrew is an Obot troll. See the below comment thread on Leo Donofrio's site indicating tactic to slam Orly Taitz — especially now there is MSM recognition (on MSNBC's Hardball/Chris Matthews) of the "natural born citizen" argument.


    It's the beginning of the end of Obama!

  • Andrew October 7, 2009, 1:58 pm

    Couldn't you afford an attorney who hasn't repeatedly failed at these types of cases?

  • Joe of St. Thérèse October 7, 2009, 1:41 pm

    Deo Gratias!

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: