Main Menu

Oral arguments scheduled in Barnett case

Orly Taitz

According to a new article at Orly’s blog (whose title is too long to repeat here), oral arguments are scheduled for May 2, 2011, in the appeal of Barnett v. Obama. Orly indicates that this is the first time that oral arguments have been scheduled in an Obama eligibility appeal. (I’ll have to think back on that one a bit, but she may be right.)

Readers may recall that this is the lawsuit where Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep were co-counsels for a collection of plaintiffs [I just can’t get that phrase, “rag tag fugitive fleet” out of my head] including failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes, active-duty military officer Pamela Barnett and a collection of others. The suit began with Alan Keyes claiming that some Bush-era executive order required investigating something or another totally inapplicable to Obama. This is also the case where Orly Taitz couldn’t quite get the defendants served with the complaint. Then, the lawsuit completely changed directions in the First Amended Complaint transmogrifying it into a quo warranto action, brimming with social-security numbers and fake Kenyan birth certificates. This lawsuit prompted my famous saying: “No wonder I’ve had those pains when I visit Orly’s web site…my credulity has been strained.”

In his lengthy decision, federal judge David O. Carter dismissed the case as to all the plaintiffs saying, among other things, that they lacked standing to bring the suit and that parts of it were filed in the wrong court. Gary Kreep and two plaintiffs (Drake and Robinson), and Orly Taitz with the balance of the plaintiffs filed separate appeals with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that the two appeals would be heard together.

It is possible that the oral arguments will be canceled, as they were in Hollister v Soetoro, and the appeal decided on the briefs. We will just have to wait and see.

Other Obama Conspiracy Theories articles on Keyes/Barnett v Obama:

, , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses to Oral arguments scheduled in Barnett case

  1. avatar
    Joey March 30, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Hi Doc, you might want to change “Warren” O. Carter to “David” O. Carter.

  2. avatar
    Obsolete March 30, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    I’m surprised the courts can make anything out of the mountains of nonsense and garbage filed in this case.
    Orly is a seditious foreign agent wasting taxpayer money and resources.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 10:46 pm #

    Joey: Hi Doc, you might want to change “Warren” O. Carter to “David” O. Carter.

    Yup.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Obsolete:
    I’m surprised the courts can make anything out of the mountains of nonsense and garbage filed in this case.

    These judges are “really smart guys” and “they went to the best schools.”

  5. avatar
    Reality Check March 30, 2011 at 10:57 pm #

    The appeal is only about whether Judge Carter properly dismissed the case on standing and other grounds. If Orly strays into her normal diatribe on Obama she will be cut off at the knees.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

    Reality Check: The appeal is only about whether Judge Carter properly dismissed the case on standing and other grounds. If Orly strays into her normal diatribe on Obama she will be cut off at the knees.

    I don’t think there will be any oral arguments.

  7. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP March 30, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Look on the bright side, Doc. Now that there’s another case on a docket, you’ll see a flurry of bither klan activity here until it’s denied.

  8. avatar
    Daniel March 30, 2011 at 11:43 pm #

    So Orly thinks this will be the time she gets to argue the “merits” (don’t you just love legal terms?) of her case….

    Well it wouldn’t be the first time Orly’s been completely ignorant of what’s going on in a court room. lol.

    Still the date might well be prophetic. Coming the day after Beltaine, I predict all that will be left of Orly’s case will be a bit of smoke from a dead bonne fire.

    Again….

  9. avatar
    The Magic M March 31, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    > So Orly thinks this will be the time she gets to argue the “merits” (don’t you just love legal terms?) of her case

    She must never have been to an oral arguments hearing in an appeal before. I’ve seen quite a few (in transcript, not in person) and I know the courts don’t entertain any shenanigans – if you’re doing anything more than focusing clearly on where the court erred and why, anything like trying to reargue the entire case or bring in additional points (Orly’s favourite, remember), you’re not going to like the court’s response.

  10. avatar
    Chris April 1, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    A couple of points:

    On some of the birther sites, they are treating the timing of this as somehow significant, and perhaps related to Trump’s recent outpourings. They are also implying that this somehow suggests that the Court has found merit in the appeal. Neither of these claims is true. The timing is simply a matter of the briefing having been completed and oral argument being scheduled within the normal amount of time after the completion of briefing. Also, the court had no choice whether to take this case. This was not like certiorari review, plaintiffs had an appeal as of right.

    It is correct that the Courtt need not have granted oral argument and could have decided to rule on the case based on the papers alone. However, my guess is that the Court granted oral argument because the case is historically significant — how often do you have a case where the plaintiff is asking the Court to declare the president of the United States ineligible?

    I should also correct Dr. C.’s suggestion that the court might change its mind and decide not to have oral argument. This is unlikely once the Court has sent out notice of the oral argument. If it was going to not have oral argument it would have sent out a notice to that effect earlier.

  11. avatar
    Thrifty April 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    Reality Check: The appeal is only about whether Judge Carter properly dismissed the case on standing and other grounds. If Orly strays into her normal diatribe on Obama she will be cut off at the knees.

    What do you mean “if”?

  12. avatar
    The Magic M April 1, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    > However, my guess is that the Court granted oral argument because the case is historically significant — how often do you have a case where the plaintiff is asking the Court to declare the president of the United States ineligible?

    On the contrary I’d rather assume a court seeing such an appeal would avoid oral argument like the plague because they are probably aware what kind of plaintiff brings such a kind of case.

    > I should also correct Dr. C.’s suggestion that the court might change its mind and decide not to have oral argument.

    I actually hope it doesn’t. Would only give birthers another opportunity to cry foul. Instead I’d love to see Orly make a complete fool out of herself, again. You know the saying about train wrecks… 😉

  13. avatar
    Chris April 1, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    To The Magic M:

    Agree with you completely regarding train wrecks. I am almost tempted to go to the oral argument. Maybe that’s why the judges granted oral argument: they wanted to find out if Orly was as bad as everyone says she is.

    BTW, for those unfamiliar with the Ninth Circuit’s procedures, even if you can’t go to the oral argument — it will be at the Ninth Circuit courthouse in Pasadena — you can listen to it. The court typically posts recordings of oral arguments on its website approximartely one to two days after the argument. They do not routinely post videos, although some Ninth Circuit oral arguments have indeed been videotaped and shown on channels such as CSPAN.

  14. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Maybe they’ll take this as an opportunity to award Orly a shiny new sanction and a CA disbarment certificate. Compete with signatures and seal. LOL!

  15. avatar
    John Reilly April 2, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    The 9th Circuit cannot disbar Ms. Dr. Taitz, or any other lawyer. The 9th Circuit can strip a lawyer of his or her right to practice before the 9th Circuit. It can also forward a decision to the licensing aiuthority, the California State Bar, for action.

  16. avatar
    John Reilly April 2, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    The appeal is not about whether Judge Carter’s reasoning was correct. An appeal is from the judgment, which in this case was dismissal. The 9th Circuit can affirm that dismissal on any ground, even one which Judge Carter rejected.

    Ms. Dr. Taitz is telling her followers that the case was dismissed because Judge Carter was forced, by some giant conspiracy, to rule against her. While I don’t usually come to the defense of Marines, Judge Carter sounds like exactly of person you would want making serious decisions.

    I’m guessing Ms. Dr. Taitz will submit further papers to the Court to further pursue her social security number and Columbia University claims.

    I’m also guessing that when the case is over, Ms. Dr. Taitz will seize defeat from the jaws of defeat.

  17. avatar
    Sef April 2, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    John Reilly:
    The 9th Circuit cannot disbar Ms. Dr. Taitz, or any other lawyer.The 9th Circuit can strip a lawyer of his or her right to practice before the 9th Circuit.It can also forward a decision to the licensing aiuthority, the California State Bar, for action.

    I didn’t mean to imply that they would be doing the disbarment, but it would be nice if a disbarment notification from the CA Bar Assoc in the form of a shiny certificate could be presented at this time. It was a joke! Jeez!

  18. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    John Reilly: Ms. Dr. Taitz is telling her followers that the case was dismissed because Judge Carter was forced, by some giant conspiracy, to rule against her.

    In fact, she alleged that he had been forced by his clerk who was foisted on him by Perkins Coie. Orly also claimed this lawyer had managed to get diplomas from Columbia and Comenius in Bratislava DURING THE SAME YEAR. Forgetting for a moment that he would also have had to be fluent in Slovak, as Doc says, he sure went to the best schools.

    Now why would Orly have thought that getting a diploma in Eastern Europe was so easy? Why did Orly go to Romania for one or two years before settling in the USA? For those who understqnd French, the following may explain a lot:
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2010/01/28/01016-20100128ARTFIG00872-la-roumanie-nouvel-eden-des-etudiants-en-medecine-.php

    As for the poor law clerk, there is a simple explanation why one database of lawyers says he graduated from Columbia, and another says Comenius. In most databases, Comenius immediately follows Columbia alphabetically. Someone clicked on the wrong bar. It’s like the SSN, people make mistakes.