Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal
November 5, 2009
Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October 29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge David Carter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build each time one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visit from the Secret Service.
I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes to understand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us. This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed before Obama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22, Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009 at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).
From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course, this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in on January 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest.
From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant) that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one must to understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January 26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss.
If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC, she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery and that Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30 days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied people to a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast?
All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides. In this particular post, John Charlton maintains that early discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:
Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss
"This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.
"The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time."
The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge: Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.
I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below; see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of my readers knows the link they can send it along.
If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009. When I mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning on page 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in the public domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See the transcript of the hearing, (page 21) where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "...a vehicle and an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to get the defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 that he doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerning the merits."
Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty of the Quo Warranto:
§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty" as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)
In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes this statement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2).
Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can read it here.
At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case was dismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be taken away.
This is Judge Carter's ruling on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. The issue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and that it must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. Judge Carter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501. Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would be reversed on appeal filed by the defendants.
Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29. In her own defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 in Orly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims.
Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (social security numbers). See this transcript, page 8. Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago on her web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separated them. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by her investigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least see if the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs, due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.
Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham (his deceased mother)
I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The same applies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they are all for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:
"I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent."
While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don't know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.
Following Judge Carter's dismissal of the case, both Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, attorneys who represent the all the plaintiffs, indicated they will be filing an appeal. While I want Obama removed from office as badly as millions of others, I believe an appeal will meet the same fate. You might disagree. However, after watching dozens of cases get dismissed on standing issues, I am convinced, besides impeachment (of a lawfully serving president), a Quo Warranto is the legal instrument to pursue. While I have tried to find an individual who might qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) as I discussed in a previous column, my efforts have not been successful to date.
Orly's plaintiff's have the option of filing new FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act request).
Orly has the option of pursuing the Quo Warranto with the District Court in Washington, DC. At this time, I do not know if she intends on doing so, but that statute was written specifically to remove a usurper. Rather than wait around for an appeal, why not pursue a legal process that is available? Of course, you could file an appeal and a Quo Warranto complaint at the same time if you want.
Are there any other options available besides those above? Yes, and Dr. Edwin Vieira covered it in a column last year:
"Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”
If an attempt at Quo Warranto fails, or one never gets filed, it may be that we have to wait until the scenario described above by Dr. Vieira comes into play.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
Copyright © 2009 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.