Main Menu

Federal judge David O. Carter declines 2nd birther case

We reported on the case of Jones v Obama last April. Ruth Jones is attempting to unseat the President through a lawsuit. The U. S. Attorneys filed a “Notice of Related Case” saying that this case is a repeat of Barnett v. Obama. The government stated 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 David O. Carter, who also heard Barnett.

Well, Judge Carter is having none of it. The transfer order was declined by Carter with a big red rubber stamp saying: “TRANSFER ORDER DECLINED” and the handwritten comment: “Insufficiently related under the rule.”

, , ,

14 Responses to Federal judge David O. Carter declines 2nd birther case

  1. avatar
    Tomtech May 26, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    That a win for Jones, get your Paypal accounts opened birthers.

  2. avatar
    Walter White May 26, 2010 at 7:08 am #

    Incompetent DoJ wasting taxpayers dollars on matters that could be solved rather quickly by an open and transparent POTUS.

    Why hasn’t DoS and DoJ complied with the court ordered Allen FOIA requests?

  3. avatar
    Dave May 26, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    Walter White: Why hasn’t DoS and DoJ complied with the court ordered Allen FOIA requests?

    You lost me here. The only order I can find in this case is the dismissal order. You found another order that says something else?

  4. avatar
    DaveH May 26, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    Walter White: Incompetent DoJ wasting taxpayers dollars on matters that could be solved rather quickly by an open and transparent POTUS.Why hasn’t DoS and DoJ complied with the court ordered Allen FOIA requests?

    As much as you would like this to be a case of smoke and mirrors, it is nothing other than a bunch of grown people acting like brats. Whaaaa! I wanna see the long form BC! Whaaa!

    There hasn’t been any order and in this case, kudos to Jones since she has an apparent ‘victory’ on her hands. She actually got what she wanted which was not to have Carter her here case. Won’t make any difference but at least she got it.

    Obama promised transparency in the way he governed. NOT in providing every little specific detail about his life to citizens that don’t want him to be president.

  5. avatar
    Arthur May 26, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Could someone explain what Carter’s decision means, it’s ramifications, etc.?

  6. avatar
    Arthur May 26, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Could someone explain what Carter’s decision means, its ramifications, etc.?

  7. avatar
    Bovril May 26, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    It means that Carter is pig sick of Birthers and their cack and feels the joy of it should be spread amongst some more of the judicial fraternity.

    The end result will be the same as the last 68/69/70 (who’s keeping count.?) cases

  8. avatar
    Arthur May 26, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Bovril:

    Thanks for the explanation. Carter’s decision is unfortunate for the birthers. From reading the transcripts of his dealings with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.,I found him to be remarkably respectful, good humored, and patient.

  9. avatar
    Rickey May 26, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Dave:
    You lost me here. The only order I can find in this case is the dismissal order. You found another order that says something else?

    Actually, it was only a partial dismissal of Allen’s case. The court ruled that he is not entitled to any records which pertain to Obama. However, his requests for information related to Obama’s mother and Lolo Soetoro are still pending. Presumably those records will be produced shortly in Strunk’s lawsuit, which is similar to Allen’s, The government has said that it expects that the non-exempt records of Obama’s mother will be released to Strunk by July 29. Presumably, once those records are released to Strunk they will also be able to fulfill the requests made by Allen and Doc C. (and who knows how many others).

  10. avatar
    WTF? May 26, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Arthur: Could someone explain what Carter’s decision means, its ramifications, etc.?

    All it means is that Judge Carter did not find the case to sufficiently related to the Barnett case to warrant transfer to him.

    If anything, I think the ruling bodes well for our judicial system (at least the part falling under the jurisdiction of Judge Carter). Judge Carter properly dismissed Barnett, and he properly refused to transfer this case.

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 26, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    WTF?: If anything, I think the ruling bodes well for our judicial system (at least the part falling under the jurisdiction of Judge Carter). Judge Carter properly dismissed Barnett, and he properly refused to transfer this case.

    I’m just curious what you will say when a different judge, in all likelihood, dismisses Jones v. Obama…

  12. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Slartibartfast, I neglected to wish you a happy “Towel Day” yesterday.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 26, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Sef: Slartibartfast, I neglected to wish you a happy “Towel Day” yesterday.

    Thank you. Although you should know where your towel is every day… (mine’s sitting on a chair on the other side of the room – a somewhat worn, full-size beach towel).

  14. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    ASFASFAF

    Sef: Slartibartfast, I neglected to wish you a happy “Towel Day” yesterday.

    Good call! I too echo that sentiment!

    Ah, Douglas Adams, you are missed.
    May you RIP. Until then, “So long, and thanks for all the fish!”