Not surprisingly Orly Taitz didn’t quite get the point of the United States Attorney’s reference to the Battle of the Bulge:
Orly: My assistant, Mr. Lincoln has contacted Roger West, assistant US attorney, lead attorney representing the defendants, asking to stipulate to discovery in light of today’s order by Judge Carter. You can see his polite and constructive response “Nuts”. I wonder, if I wasn’t a woman, if I was a part of good old boys club, would there be a more appropriate response.
So, some clarification was necessary:
Von: West, Roger (USACAC) (Roger.West4@usdoj.gov)
An: Charles Lincoln
Datum: Mittwoch, den 7. Oktober 2009, 12:17:38 Uhr
Betreff: RE: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.You are obviously not a student of military history. Because you appear confused, let me be clear. Per Judge Carter’s order, discovery is stayed in this case. We will not agree to any discovery in this case at this time.
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:11 PM
To: West, Roger (USACAC)
Cc: Dr. Orly Taitz
Subject: AW: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.Dear Mr. West:
Unless you can provide us with a more thoughtful answer and analysis of the situation, or can you ask Mr. DeJute to do so, We will report your Laconic response below to Judge Carter as the full and final statement of the United States’ well-considered position in this case.
So, of course, Orly has followed up with yet another pleading:
It’s pretty obvious what the fate of this motion will be, but one wonders if Judge Carter will even bother reviewing it while drafting the Dismissal Order.
Update 10/8/2009: As expected, Orly’s Motion to Expedite Discovery was denied.
I love this lady and her strong, independent spirit.
In many ways she represents what is best about America — a hard working immigrant who came here with nothing, educated in two professions, willing to go against the grain and challenge authority at every twist and turn.
There is nothing wrong with someone questioning the legitimacy of the power exercised by any and all presidents. There is nothing wrong with someone who refuses to turn tail and crawl away in meek obsequience to the dictates of judges with lifetime tenure (or politically elected).
These are good things. We need people like her, whether we agree on a particular issue or not, or whether we think she will garner votes for our favorite beliefs or not.
Having seen Russia in her backyard and learned from her forbearers she knows more about corruption, Potemkinian propositions and tyranny than most of us native born Americans can ever understand.
Win, lose or draw, go Orly!!! Keep it up!
The woman is a deluded hack who either doesn’t understand simple legal concepts or deliberately misrepresents them.
She has no factual or legal basis for any of the arguments she makes, she’s abusing the court system, and every time she deservedly loses a case she proceeds to insult the integrity of the judge who ruled against her.
She needs to have her license to practice law taken away.
Doug, to the extent what you say is correct, it takes little time, minimal energy and scant effort to dismiss her. She is a mere irritant.
No factual basis? Only time will tell for sure.
I’ve been around the block enough times to know that families commonly lie and deceive about the circumstances of birth, particularly when an innocent child is born in difficult cirucumstances.
Looking at all the facts I sense there is something being hidden about Obama’s birth. Was it that he was born in Kenya? Probably not. But I don’t know and you don’t know.
And as a regular patron of the Arlington, terrorist DMV who used to observe some of the transactions that occured in the parking lot, I can personally vouch for how easy it is/was to generate fraudulent documentation.
The Cult of Orly is starting to resemble a certain other cult that you (and, to a lesser extent, I) were riling up lo about two years ago. Good to see you’re having as much fun with this cult as the previous one!
@Let’s Be Free Says:
You don’t file lawsuits over speculation or “your sense.” There presently is no factual basis for any of these claims, and no indication they are true.
Yes, document fraud occurs. Doesn’t mean Obama committed document fraud.
And Taitz is an incompetent liar. If she is the best of the country, we are all doomed.
And here I thought discovery was about searching for facts, that litigants weren’t expected to have all facts at their disposal when they file a case.
I do know for a fact that my facsimile birth certificate (that I have from my now ancient childhood days) references a lot of information that is not available on the computer generated printout (that I ordered up for my passport) which passes for a birth certificate these days.
Personally I doubt sincerely Obama committed document fraud but it would not surprise me in the least if his grandparents or parents did to protect his interests. That sort of thing can be settled by viewing original documents or facsimile copies.
Also, personally I think Obama’s birth to a US citizen mother is enough to qualify him constitutionally as president regardless or where he was born.
“And here I thought discovery was about searching for facts, that litigants weren’t expected to have all facts at their disposal when they file a case.”
Discovery is not the same as a fishing expedition. It’s also expensive, and I don’t think many taxpayers would be very happy with a US Atty running up big discovery costs when he has a motion to dismiss pending, discovery hasn’t begun, and the claim is pretty clearly frivolous. Even if it weren’t a completely frivolous claim, I’m not enamored of the idea of racking up discovery bills when there’s a strong chance the case is going to get dismissed before an answer is even filed.
In order to get to discovery, you have to first be able to allege facts that would give rise to a colorable claim if proven. The purpose of this motion to dismiss is to say that Taitz hasn’t even alleged facts that present a colorable claim, even if she could prove them. When no facts, if proven, could state a claim, there’s absolutely no reason to engage in discovery.
I believe that the DOJ lawyer’s historically allusive “Nuts!” response to ridiculous demands was likely prompted by Taitz’s disbarred felon assistant Lincoln’s (who is apparently even nuttier that Taitz, see http://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/about/) use of a German Yahoo mail account which peppers all his sent mail with headers and even ads in GERMAN.
Mark, I understand. But let’s cut through the lawyering and posturing about expense. All that is really needed here is a copy of a few documents. Heck, I would pay for that.
And I am willing to bet a deli sub that if and when the original birth certificate is produced it turns out the maternal signature is forged.
LBF,
The document that Obama has already produced is the only document Hawaii provides to verify births:
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
I seriously doubt the document produced is the only document Hawaii has in its possession.
Doug, nowhere does the article you cite or any other article I’ve seen deny the existence of an original written certificate or a true facsimile copy. There is almost certainly such a document that was referred to in the process of building the short form computer data base.
If the practice in Hawaii is like the practice in the states I’ve seen then that original has signatures of the mother, the father, the delivering physician and identifies the specific location, date and time of birth.
I don’t deny the or even challenge the prima facia validity of the so-called certificate of live birth. I do question whether, legalities aside, it is the best evidence and the only evidence.
Read the link.
Under Hawaiian law, the document Obama produced is the only document authorized by law to be released.
“But let’s cut through the lawyering and posturing about expense.”
Filing a lawsuit is the surest way of making sure that you can’t “cut through the lawyering.” When one files a lawsuit, one should expect that lawyers will act like lawyers and zealously defend their clients.
“I don’t deny the or even challenge the prima facia validity of the so-called certificate of live birth. I do question whether, legalities aside, it is the best evidence and the only evidence.”
Sadly, curiosity about the quality of evidence provided by a public figure in a public discussion is not a colorable injury. The time to raise a legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility was when he was being placed on the ballot or, perhaps, before the Electoral College met. Now, there is no conceivable basis to challenge his eligibility and it is frankly absurd to expect any attorney to do Ms. Taitz a favor by providing discovery he has no obligation to provide, doubly so since Ms. Taitz’ actions make abundantly clear that she would not accept any documentation as valid and would instead just use it to find a new way of challenging Obama’s eligibility.
OCTOBER 6, 2009 | GOVERNMENT
Obama Suit Is on Shaky Ground
By Don J. DeBenedictis
Daily Journal Staff Writer
SANTA ANA – A federal judge seems poised to toss out yet another lawsuit attacking Barack Obama’s right to be president on the claim he was born in Kenya.
During a 3½ hour hearing Monday, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter repeatedly said he has serious doubts about whether the plaintiffs – 44 military members, reservists, state legislators and third-party political candidates – have standing to sue over the qualifications of a sitting president. Barnett v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082-DOC (C.D. CA, filed Jan. 20, 2009)
“The issue of standing… that’s your shakiest ground,” Carter told the plaintiffs’ attorneys and a courtroom packed with supporters.
“I like to decide cases on the merits, but I have to get there legally,” the judge added.
The case is one of several brought by Mission Viejo lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz alleging Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, as he has said, and therefore is not a “natural born citizen” in violation of the Constitution’s requirements to hold the presidency. The California Supreme Court and federal courts in Georgia, Tennessee and Pennsylvania have blocked or dismissed similar cases. Other cases by other lawyers have met a similar fate.
On Monday, Taitz claimed Obama became president by fraud, by using a false birth certificate, 39 different Social Security numbers and $700 million from Saudi Arabia. “We have a right to ask, ‘Excuse me? Who is this man?’” she argued.
Her voice breaking, Taitz said her great uncle had been imprisoned in Siberia by the Soviet Union. “That’s what happens when citizens of their country don’t have the right to enforce their constitutional rights.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger E. West argued it would produce disaster “if anyone with a political agenda and a filing fee could contest the right to office of any sitting president” in any of the 93 federal courts around the nation.
“This is an attack on the presidency itself,” West said.
West and his co-counsel, Assistant U.S. Attorney David A. DeJute, argued the plaintiffs cannot show the “particularized injury” needed to have standing to sue.
They also argued that in the Constitution, the only ways to remove a president are by impeachment and by the procedures set out in the 25th Amendment for incapacity. Both powers are reserved specifically for Congress.
But another lawyer for plaintiffs, Gary G. Kreep of Ramona, said neither of those provisions should apply to Obama because both assume the president holds office legitimately. “If he’s not eligible, he ain’t there,” Kreep said.
If only Congress or the electoral college has any authority to rule on presidential qualifications, “then our three-part representative government goes bye-bye,” he added.
Carter did not say when he would issue his decision, though he did say he would allow the losing side the right to appeal immediately.
Carter has been criticized for not booting the case immediately, but he said Monday the plaintiffs deserve full access to the courts and a chance to present their arguments. “Americans … appreciate being heard,” he said.
The fact that Taitz took seven months to serve the lawsuit formally on the many defendants she named also prevented Carter from acting.
He did chastise Taitz for posting something on her blog encouraging people to call him to present their views. He said his staff has deleted 40-100 phone messages a day.
“That was inappropriate,” he said.
don_debenedictis@dailyjournal.com
“turns out the maternal signature is forged.”
But there’s no evidence to support that accusation.
Doubt based on speculation is not reasonable.
No surprise, motion denied:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818334/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-83-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-EX-PARTE-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-82-Gov
Minute order explicitly says the motion to dismiss is still pending.
I am just kind of wondering if any of the lawyers here ever read Marbury vs. Madison. It is aburd to claim that a state dispositively determines qualifications for a Constitutional office. Let’s break up the lawyers guild and let the truth be the beacon.
Orly makes such wild accusations… Doesn’t she have to prove them?
Lets Be Free:
The lawsuit was filed in federal court, you nimrod. What’s this “state dispositively determines qualification for a Constitutional office” crap?
Do you know ANYTHING about law at all?!!
State law is being invoked as dispositively determining that Obama was naturally born.
That’s an entirely different thing from saying “state dispositively determines qualification for a Constitutional office.” State law does NOT EQUAL having the State courts determine anything.
And considering that the only place the natural-born distinction really matters is in matters of eligibility for the presidency, I wonder how much so-called “state law” you could even apply.
Grumpy, the consitutional inquiry into whether Obama was naturally born is not circumscribed by state law — if a Federal Court were to ever hear this case on the merits (which I acknowledge won’t happen in this lifetime because the idea of the courts blindly seeking justice is a joke) you lose. Federal courts would go beyond what Hawaii law allows.