Main Menu

Been there, done that, say U. S. Attorneys

The only Obama eligibility case remaining alive at the original jurisdiction level, is Jones v. Obama in the U. S. District Court for Central California Western Division, and that’s why this bit of legal maneuvering merits an article.

The U. S. Attorneys have filed a “Notice of Related Case” saying that this case is a repeat of Barnett v. Obama. The government states that the present case raises the same issues as the former case and that it would save the court considerable labor if the case could be sent to Judge Carter, who also heard Barnett.

Ruth Jones filed an objection to the suggestion that the cases were related, for one reason because the first case, she says, was filed against the President in his individual capacity and this one includes his “official capacity.” Her main objection, however, is that the other case has already been dismissed and that Judge Carter was just so unfair by not letting it be heard on the merits. She accuses the government of “court shopping.”

, , , ,

17 Responses to Been there, done that, say U. S. Attorneys

  1. avatar
    Walter White May 16, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Jones doesn’t hold back …

    There is no other (related) case which is “open”.

    Judge Carter allowed no discovery. Judge Carter allowed no hearings on the merits of the case after he said he would.

    Even when the Judge said he would hold hearings on the ‘merits’ he changed his mind all of a sudden and dismissed the case.

  2. avatar
    richCares May 16, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    “Even when the Judge said he would hold hearings on the merits’ he changed his mind all of a sudden and dismissed the case”

    the only correct part of this comment is “dismissed the case”

  3. avatar
    DaveH May 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    Walter White: Jones doesn’t hold back …

    What you all fail to understand and if you would actually read the opinions of the judges when they have dismissed these cases is that it was their opinion that the cases would not succeed on the merits. So, for all practical purposes, the judges did look at the merits and saw there was nothing but speculation.

    Just because you think that there may be evidence to support your arguments, you can’t get the judges to prove it for you and that is what Orly has tried to do in her cases. She can’t do the work so she wants the judges to do it for her by granting discovery. And the reason she can’t do the work, is because there is nothing to find. No suprises anywhere.

    Obama was born in the United States. End of subject.

  4. avatar
    Zixi of Ix May 16, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Judge Carter allowed no discovery. Judge Carter allowed no hearings on the merits of the case after he said he would.

    Even when the Judge said he would hold hearings on the merits’ he changed his mind all of a sudden and dismissed the case.

    Would you mind terribly providing a link to a direct quote (as in, a quote from the judge, not a quote from someone supposedly quoting the judge) where the judge specifically said that he’d allow discovery in the case?

    Providing a link to the court transcript would be just awesome!

    I’m going to go ahead and assume that you aren’t just taking Orly Taitz’s word for what the judge said in Barnett v. Obama, in light of the fact that she’s been ‘mistaken’ so many times before about such matters.

    Judges are not usually known for making prejudicial statements about which sorts of evidence or discovery (if any) they’ll allowed before both sides have been heard, so you’ll understand why your statement sounds a little odd. It also sounds a tad odd in light of the fact that judges have been historically unwilling to meddle in the business of Congress (the part where they certify the election and all that).

    In fact, Judge Carter went out of his way to highlight that very concern in his dismissal: Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.
    P.S. I’ve done what I ask of you, and am providing you with a link to the judge’s decision: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/
    Again, thanks ever-so-much for that link in advance. πŸ˜€

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    Zixi of Ix: Would you mind terribly providing a link to a direct quote (as in, a quote from the judge, not a quote from someone supposedly quoting the judge) where the judge specifically said that he’d allow discovery in the case?

    This is the transcript in the case.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21189922/Keyes-Barnett-v-Obama-Official-Court-Transcript-From-10-5-2009-Hearing

  6. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    Walter White: Judge Carter allowed no discovery. Judge Carter allowed no hearings on the merits of the case after he said he would.

    The Judge never waived subject matter jurisdiction, as no court can do so. What he waived was personal jurisdiction when Orly continued to be unable to correctly serve the President.

    To suggest that he had stated that he would allow for discovery, ignores the fact that Subject Matter Jurisdiction(standing) cannot be waived by any party and when lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is pointed out or sua sponte observed, the Court has no choice but to reject hearing the case.

    Facts…

  7. avatar
    DaveH May 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    Zixi of Ix: Would you mind terribly providing a link to a direct quote (as in, a quote from the judge, not a quote from someone supposedly quoting the judge) where the judge specifically said that he’d allow discovery in the case?Providing a link to the court transcript would be just awesome!I’m going to go ahead and assume that you aren’t just taking Orly Taitz’s word for what the judge said in Barnett v. Obama, in light of the fact that she’s been mistaken’ so many times before about such matters.Judges are not usually known for making prejudicial statements about which sorts of evidence or discovery (if any) they’ll allowed before both sides have been heard, so you’ll understand why your statement sounds a little odd. It also sounds a tad odd in light of the fact that judges have been historically unwilling to meddle in the business of Congress (the part where they certify the election and all that).In fact, Judge Carter went out of his way to highlight that very concern in his dismissal: Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.P.S. I’ve done what I ask of you, and am providing you with a link to the judge’s decision: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/Again, thanks ever-so-much for that link in advance.

    I think birthers read too much into Judge Carter’s words. You need to go back and read the court transcripts because I sure don’t see anything in anyone of them that indicates that he is going to let the case be heard on the merits.

    Judge Carter’s dismissal was quite critical of the birthers – especially Orly. The fact of the matter is, no matter what you all think, the courts can’t get involved in this manner. Barack Obama is the sitting president and was voted by an overwhelming majority. The only way that he can be removed is through impeachment. And that, my birther friend, is why the judges never thought that the cases could succeed on their merits.

  8. avatar
    richCares May 16, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    Walter White’s comment is the official birther excuse for their very high failure rate in court. Yes, I know it’s silly but it does keep the paypal button clicking, it seems Walter fell for it. If you hate Obama you will be easy prey for this false little tidbit. Go birther, hit that paypal button. The official “Scammers love birthers” shindig is going on now at paster mannings church, they will succeed at getting Obama out, all 75 of them, click that paypal. (white spots on bathroom walls)

  9. avatar
    DaveH May 16, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    richCares: Walter White’s comment is the official birther excuse for their very high failure rate in court. Yes, I know it’s silly but it does keep the paypal button clicking, it seems Walter fell for it. If you hate Obama you will be easy prey for this false little tidbit. Go birther, hit that paypal button. The official “Scammers love birthers” shindig is going on now at paster mannings church, they will succeed at getting Obama out, all 75 of them, click that paypal. (white spots on bathroom walls)

    It’s definitely one of borderraven’s favorite arguments.

  10. avatar
    richCares May 16, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    It was Orly that claimed “he promised to hear the merits”, the same Orly that claims and still claims, “My case was removed from the docket” when all that really happened is the public access site was down for maintenance, nothing was removed from the actual docket, but Orly got some paypal clicks out of it. She still puts this in all her presentments, and judges laugh heartily and her fans click the paypal. Hating Obama causes mental illness!

  11. avatar
    Dave May 16, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Walter White: Judge Carter allowed no discovery.

    I wonder if you could speculate about what discovery Taitz might ask for? I’ve always wondered what birthers imagine could come out of discovery that would have any relevance to the President’s eligibility.
    Far as I know Taitz has never said what she would do with discovery, she just keeps assuring us that it’s very important.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Dave: wonder if you could speculate about what discovery Taitz might ask for?

    Since everybody copies Berg, why not the original list from Berg v. Obama from 2008?

    (a) A Genuine Certified Copy of Obama’s “vault” version of his Birth Certificate;
    (b) Any and all Registrations of Birth, including but not limited to Canada, Kenya, the British Isles, and the United States in the name(s) of Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barack Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama, Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham;
    (c) A Certified copy of the U.S. Oath of Allegiance that was required to be taken to regain any U.S. citizenship status;
    (d) Any and all passport records and/or files, including but not limited to applications and travel logs to Obama’s Indonesian passport, Kenya passport, British Isle passport, Pakistan passport and U.S. Passport, in the name(s) of Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barack Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama, Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham;
    (e) Any and all adoption records, including but not limited to the adoption of Obama by Lolo Soetoro and Obama’s grandparents, the Dunham’s in the name(s) of Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barack Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama, Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham;
    (f) A copy of Defendant Obama’s background check from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and any other entity pursuant to being vetted;
    (g) A copy of Defendant Obama’s Kenya “vault” version Birth Certificate;
    (h) Any and all applications for a social security number and replacement social security cards in the name(s) of Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barack Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama, Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham; and
    (i) Any and all applications and Court documents to change Defendant, Obama’s name.
    and
    (a) Any and all college applications and records, including but not limited to Occidental College, Harvard College, Harvard Law School, University of Chicago, Columbia and any other colleges which Defendant Obama applied at;
    (b) A copy of all college thesis papers from Occidental College, Harvard College, Harvard Law School, Columbia and any other colleges which Defendant Obama applied;
    (c) Any and all applications for College Grants and School Loans;
    (d) Any and all essays pertaining to Defendant Obama’s life, background, heritage and childhood;
    (e) Any and all Baptismal records and/or certificates;
    (f) A detailed list and copies of membership of all clubs, organizations, fraternities, groups and affiliations;
    (g) A copy of Defendant Obama’s Selective Service Registration;
    (h) Any and all Harvard Law Review articles written by Defendant Obama.
    and
    (a) The Background check from any and all Governmental Entity or Agency used in Vetting Defendant Obama;
    (b) Any and All paperwork and records submitted to the DNC in order to Nominate Defendant Obama;
    (c) Any and all records used in the vetting process of Defendant Obama; and
    (d) Any and all files, in the possession of the DNC pertaining to Defendant Barack H. Obama.

  13. avatar
    Dave May 17, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since everybody copies Berg, why not the original list from Berg v. Obama from 2008?

    This list pretty well illustrates the difficulties. You look at those items and you ask yourself, who exactly do I send the subpoena to?
    Not to mention the more obvious problem, that someone might ask you what facts you are trying to establish and how the requested evidence relates to those facts.

  14. avatar
    Rickey May 17, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Walter White: Jones doesn’t hold back …

    The government attorneys never claimed that there is an “open” related case, just that there is a “previously filed” related case. The point is that all of the issues raised by Jones were argued previously by Orly, and the court rejected them.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30933415/JONES-v-OBAMA-5-NOTICE-of-Related-Case-s-cacd-031010105260-5-0

    The amazing thing about you birthers is that your licensed attorneys have a batting average of .000, yet you now believe that a pro se litigant about whom you know absolutely nothing has a chance of prevailing!

  15. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 17, 2010 at 3:55 am #

    Rickey: The amazing thing about you birthers is that your licensed attorneys have a batting average of .000, yet you now believe that a pro se litigant about whom you know absolutely nothing has a chance of prevailing!

    One should not be so disparaging about pro se litigants in the birfer suits. Not having one of these “licensed” lawyers (who either are stark raving mad or have a hidden agenda) might actually be a plus. After all, it was pro se litigants who got the only decision on the merits: Ankeny versus Indiana.

  16. avatar
    DaveH May 17, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: One should not be so disparaging about pro se litigants in the birfer suits. Not having one of these “licensed” lawyers (who either are stark raving mad or have a hidden agenda) might actually be a plus. After all, it was pro se litigants who got the only decision on the merits: Ankeny versus Indiana.

    Not the best example for birfers, Paul, since in that decision they looked at Wong Kim Ark and concluded that Obama was a natural born citizen. πŸ˜‰

  17. avatar
    Rickey May 17, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    One should not be so disparaging about pro se litigants in the birfer suits. Not having one of these “licensed” lawyers (who either are stark raving mad or have a hidden agenda) might actually be a plus. After all, it was pro se litigants who got the only decision on the merits: Ankeny versus Indiana.

    That’s a point I hadn’t considered. Still, Ruth Jones, who has no phone (but a P.O. Box in Beverly Hills!), wouldn’t exactly fill me with confidence if I were a birther.