The Motion to Dismiss in Barnett v. Obama that I wrote about earlier this week remains pending but, thanks to their own ignorance, Orly Taitz and her minions think they’ve won:
(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”, which is really a mere clerical entry, 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.The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
Alan Keyes, who happens to be one of the Plaintiffs in the case represented by Taitz repeats this claim:
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 released 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.
Umm, not really once you actually look at the Order itself:
Here’s a clue birthers — the Motion to Dismiss remains under advisement. It will, most likely, be granted. This Order is a mere clerical entry that means nothing. The fact that it’s not even signed by the Judge should clue you into that fact.
Even more amusing is the email exchange between Orly’s legal assistant, disbarred attorney Charles Lincoln, and the US Attorney handling the case:
Von: “West, Roger (USACAC)”
Karte anzeigen
An: Charles Lincoln——————————————————————————–
Nuts.From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Dejute, David (USACAC); West, Roger (USACAC)
Subject: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. West, apparently, is a fan of World War II General Anthony McAuliffe.
The good thing about this little over-reaction ? When the case really does get dismissed in the next day or so, it will be all the sweeter to see the birthers going nuts.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
[...] a history of promising fiscally sound entitlement programs that turn into a disastrous money pit. Orly Taitz And The Birthers Really Are As Dumb As They Seem – belowthebeltway.com 10/07/2009 The Motion to Dismiss in Barnett v. Obama that I wrote about [...]
October 7th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
You have to love the fact that they are consistently entertaining in their inept understanding of court procedures. I need more popcorn for the coming implosion show!
October 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
First time posting here. But in response to your question, Doug, no, they do not seem, for they are.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
BTW, didn’t Judge Carter also granted the Government’s motion for interlocutory appeal in the event he were to deny the motion to dismiss? That would make the disbarred attorney/paralegal’s request for discovery even more laughable.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I hope Judge Carter is taking his time to write a nice slap down of these birfers like Judge Land did.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Sad, very sad. This is not about courtroom rules, delay tactics, excuses to dismiss. This is about the American people seeing an emperor with no clothes, while all the kings horses and kings men stand by, and the press applaud like little penguins.
He can not have the decency to say to the growing numbers of
concerned – ” Hey all’ this is Mr Obama, your president – I was born at this address on this day”. That’s all it would take! No need of any useless court. Maybe Mr Obama actually is an honest man. Maybe he just choses not to have to lie.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
So,what will you write about when you are proven to be the fool? What law firm pays you, so I will be sure to stay away from any of your associates in case they are of the same persuasion.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Zone,
If you don’t believe the authorities from Hawaii, why would you believe anything the President says? At this point, if Jesus himself comes down to earth to testify that Mr. Obama is the legitimate president, you would not believe HIM.
I don’t know the address where I was born because it’s not in
the original birth certificate. And I was born in Michigan. So, I think I don’t qualify to be President either.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Zone–
You really don’t understand why we have all those rules of civil procedure, do you?
It’s a little thing called the Due Process clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Basically, following the rules of civil procedure means that we have a very good chance that Due Process has been followed on both sides–both for plaintiff and accused.
For a group of people who scream so much about the Constitution you certainly don’t seem to understand anything about what it mandates. And no, you do not get to make up things about U.S. law as you go along.