Thanks to the wonderful Obots at Politijab and Fogbow we can begin with the events at the hearing on 7/13/09, which explain a lot of what followed.
OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT 7-13-2009 Hearing
It’s of interest to note that one of the biggest bugs up Orly’s ass about Judge Carter is her constant claim that Carter stated “he would hear the case on the merits”. This hearing is where she got that idea. On the top of page 52 of the transcript, there is this:
“THE COURT: I mean, if he's not President, he shouldn't be President; if he is, he should be. And we to resolve this on the merits.”
Reading the pages preceding that comment however, you can see that Carter was irritated at Taitz’s failure to properly serve and was trying to explain that if she was to go anywhere with this she first had to follow the rules. At the end of page 51 before he made that statement we have this:
MS. TAITZ: Well okay. Well, what we suggested to the counsel, and I believe I guess what we're gonna do is, if he accepts service today, we will send a FOIA request for a 30-day response.
MR. DeJUTE: I haven't seen it, Your Honor. I haven't -- they may do anything they wish.
THE COURT: That's not an agreement that he's going to comply with that. But get the case into court, for goodness sakes.
MS. TAITZ: Okay."
Judge Carter’s statement about “hearing the case on the merits” was then made and followed by this:
THE COURT: So, Counsel, if you want me to resolve this, I will. I suggest to you tentatively that the ruling would be unfavorable to you. Okay?
MS. TAITZ: Well,
THE COURT: And, therefore, if you can file today, it resolves all the jurisdictional issues. It will spin through the labyrinth, but it will come right back to this Court.
That doesn’t exactly sound to me like he was making any declaration of guarantee to hear this case on the merits. Sounds more like he was insisting she get her shit straight so they could GTF on with it.
Barnett v Obama is also the same case in which Orly submitted the forged Kenyan BC that she got from convicted forger Lucas Smith as “evidence”. We’ll pick it up with Orly’s 8/1/09 court filing.
SPECIAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY
Well evidently Orly was soooo excited about getting her hands on Obama’s Kenyan BC, and the fact that she let her convicted felon and disbarred boy toy assistant Charles E Lincoln III draft the filing for her, it seems she neglected to follow protocol in filing that document, so Judge Nakazato issued this one page “Order” listing all the shit she screwed up on and stated:
“It is hereby ordered that the documents shall be stricken from the record and shall not be considered by the court”
Well that pissed off Orly so she fired off another motion “Objecting to Nakazato’s action” and of course and asking for his Recusal. (Imagine that!)
Then on 8/21/09 Judge Carter issued this order.
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter
Notice the very first paragraph.
"Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 Order Striking Filed Documents from the Record and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), filed with the Court on August 18, 2009, and noticed for a hearing on September 14, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (the “Discovery Motion”). Despite the September14, 2009 noticed hearing date, Plaintiffs request an “earlier and expedited” hearing on the Discovery Motion. Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby sets a new hearing date on the matter for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m."
What Judge Carter did here was grant her motion to “review Nakazato’s order” striking her documents and “her” request for discovery. That is not the same thing as him actually “Ordering Discovery”. The “discovery motion” he is referring to is Taitz’s motion that Nakazato threw out for incompetent filing.
But what did Taitz do?
What a dipshit! But hay, the flying monkeys were all over that like bugs on batshit.
On Sept 4th Taitz again submitted into “evidence” the forged Kenyan BC, along with Lucas Smith’s sworn affidavit that he had personally gone to Kenya and bribed officials to get it.
Appendix Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama
Boy, she’s was really cooking with gas now, and ready to blow that Kenyan usurper’s little black ass right back to Africa with this!
On Sept 8th Judge Carter issued this order denying plaintiff motion for modification:
ORDER by Judge David O. Carter DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION
Sept 8th was also the date of the hearing, and again thanks to Politijab and Fogbow Obots we have a report on that hearing.
Keyes v Obama - Motions Hearing - 8-SEP, 2009
From page 6 we have:
“He (Judge Carter) then started talking about having a scheduling conference with all counsel. He referenced the 12(b) 6 rule, which is the motion to dismiss. He said, "I haven't yet seen the motion. I will look at it right away. In the meantime let's proceed to talk about a scheduling conference." He then set October 5th for the Motion to Dismiss hearing, saying if that motion fails then we'll have a scheduling conference on the same day.”
On page 7
“The judge then goes back and gets everyone to agree to October 5th, at which time there will be the Motion to Dismiss and the Scheduling Conference. Then after some give and take about scheduling he said -- and waveydavey wasn't exactly perfectly clear -- but he thought motions due November 16th, like any dispositive motions in the case -- he would hear the motions on December 7th, pretrial would be January 11th, and trial would be January 26.”
Of course all of this was contingent on IF the motion to dismiss failed. But Orly goes running home to her computer and posts “HUGE NEWS! FED. JUDGE CARTER SETS TRIAL DATE FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY!!!”
The next day Judge Carter issued an “Order” - denying plaintiff’s motion for modification of Judge Nakazato’s ruling, and the motion to recuse him.
“In this case, Magistrate Judge Nakazato rejected Plaintiffs’ filing for failing to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiffs’ Counsel admits that she failed to comply with Local Rules 7-4 and 11-3.3. However, Counsel argues that the order as a whole was erroneous because it “appears to be inconsistent with Judge David O. Carter’s oral assurances in court on July 13, 2009, that this case would be allowed to proceed on the merits without undue regard to technicalities.” Mot. at 2. This Court did not intend to suggest in the July hearing that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was being given a carte blanche to disregard the Local Rules that all attorneys before the Central District of California courts must follow. As such, Magistrate Judge Nakazato’s Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and will not be modified.”
Moving right along, we get to the report on the hearing that took place on 10/5/09
Barnett v. Obama - Report on 10-5 Hearing
In this hearing Judge Carter addressed (on page 28) the issue of Taitz encouraging her flying monkeys to badger the court
“Addressing TAITZ, he said, apparently on your blog you've encouraged people to contact this court. We have had 40 to 100 calls a day. If there's any pressure, it's from you.”
And continued it on page 32
“To TAITZ he said, apparently you've encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don't help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won't bear on my decision.”
(Typical Orly tactics, have the flying monkeys just badger the shit out of everyone)
On 10/29/09 Carter issued his ruling on the defendants motion to dismiss
Barnett v Obama Carter Dismisses Suit
On page 28:
"Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision. Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
IV. DISPOSITION Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & TelegraphCo. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED: October 29, 2009
Wow, that really sent the batshit flying in every direction. On 11/9/09 Orly filed her motion for consideration.
Motion for Reconsideration
I guess there’s really no limit to what Taitz can pull out of her ass. On Dec 3 she followed that motion with this letter:
Letter to Judge Carter
BTW, this is a photograph of the real Roman Obama
From there, this thing goes back and forth, back and forth, accusation, gossip, hearsay, fantasy, and an entire hodgepodge of shit until Aug 11, 2010 when Taitz files this opening brief:
Appellants Opening Brief by Orly Taitz - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Yea, yea, yada, yada. Cutting to the gist:
“Wherefore the appellant respectfully requests: granting above appeal as requested and find for the Appellants
1. court erred in not granting Plaintiffs 05.27.09 motion for default judgment by the Plaintiffs
2. court erred in not granting 06.14.09. motion for reconsideration of 05.27.10 motion or for certification for appeal
3. court abused its judicial discretion and improperly applied pressure on Plaintiffs' counsel Taitz in demanding that she serve the defendant Obama yet again, after he was already served four times by different means, that she serve the US attorneys office for the purpose of them representing Obama, and that due to duress and intimidation applied, her consent to serve them was not valid. Absent such consent to serve the defendant again, and due to the fact that the defendant did not provide an answer to the complaint, default judgment should be entered and post default discovery needs to be ordered.
4.court erred in it‘s 10.29.2010 ruling granting defendant‘s motion to dismiss.
5. Court erred in including defamatory, slanderous inflammatory statements about the Plaintiff‘s counsel that came from some ex -parte communications of non-parties without giving the counsel an opportunity to respond and refusing any minimal inquiry into authenticity or veracity of these statements.
6.Appelants request sua sponte assignment to the independent Prosecutor and public integrity unit evidence of Obama's illegitimacy to US presidency,
5. sua sponte referral to the special prosecutor the matter of intimidation of Federal Judge David O. Carter by yet unknown individual (individuals)
6. cost and reasonable fees of appeal.”
On 10/13/10 “Appellees’ Answering Brief” was filed requesting the District Court’s order dismissing this action be affirmed. To which Taitz responded with:
(APPEAL - 9th CIRCUIT) - 28 - (Taitz) - Filed (ECF) Appellants Opitonal Reply
Finally on March 30th 2011 the case gets scheduled for “Oral Arguments on May 2nd 2011. Taitz and Drake are each granted 10 minutes to make their case. Now how the hell Taitz will finish “her” argument in 10 minutes is beyond me, I doubt she could finish in 10 hours, especially when she is going to attempt to argue her “interpretation” of how this all went down as opposed to what the actual documentation says. It will be especially interesting if she attempts to throw in all the “Illegally Obtained” documents she got from the Student Clearinghouse, and selective service website. But we’ll certainly see on May 2nd. Again, some of our beloved Obots from Fogbow will be in the courtroom, so we’ll get 1st hand reports on how it all goes down.
Kudo’s to the Fogbowers for that!
Make sure you stock up on popcorn and beer!
Edited to Add:
Just as a matter of potential interest, here is a chronological list of other documents/filings I’ve come across in regard to this case.
8.20.09 Taitz Emergency Expedited Hearing decision requested
9.13.09 Taitz letter to DeJute
9.14.09 Kreep opposition
9.15.09 Larry Sinclair Affidavit
9.15.09 Kreep revised opposition
9.18.09 Kreep Opposition
9.21.09 Joint report filed by defendants
10.12.09 Lucas Smith Affidavit
4.20.11 Taitz request for additional time
4.21.11 Order granting in part and denying in part request for additional time