BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#1

Post by realist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:12 pm



As requested by LM K, a repost for better readability (sorry, was just in a hurry to get it posted).



I assume it is identical to the original, so I will delete the original posting. i can always repost it if necessary.



HERE IS THE REPORT I WAS GIVEN BY BB FROM WAVEYDAVEY, WHO ATTENDED THE HEARING:



* * * * * * *

WAVEY DAVEY'S REPORT OF THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING IN KEYES V OBAMA 7/12/09



AS DICTATED TO ME BY BB



I received a call from wavey davey who attended today's hearing in the Central District of California. The outcome is not what we expected, but it is clear that the judge wants to position the case so that he can rule on the merits.



The judge had stern words for Orly a number of times, although he showed a lot of patience. She kept going off on her litany regarding the hundreds of Social Security numbers, and the judge let her bather on for a while. She also repeatedly asked the Court, "Why are the United States attorneys here? They have no standing, they're not allowed to be here," and the Court corrected her on that.



She wanted to talk about the merits of the case and the court said, "Today is not about merits, it is about procedure."



The court made clear, several times, that he wants this case to go forward on the merits but he did say that proper service had not been achieved on Obama. The U.S. Attorney's office was represented by DeJute. At first Mr. DeJute said that he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the United States but it was determined that the U.S. Attorney for the district could accept service and so the court ordered Orly and DeJute to confer and to march downstairs together to properly serve the United States Attorney.



Charles Lincoln was present as a "law clerk."



Wavey davey described him as "short, dumpy, early middle-age, balding."



Orly continually argued with the judge. The judge responded, "I'm giving you a gift." When she continued to want to argue the merits and that she had achieved service the judge said, "I think you must be deaf. You aren't listening. You're stubborn."



The judge kept saying that he wanted "what gets this case into court on the merits."



So what was agreed was that the service would be achieved on the United States Attorney, the United States would have 60 days to respond, and the United States many not ask for any extensions of time.



Orly still wasn't even satisfied with this result and the judge kept saying, "If you want this expedited I'll do this, but we need to get this resolved for once and all."



At one point then Orly said she wanted mediation. The judge's response was, "What's to mediate? Either Obama is president or he is not."



At one point Orly started to read the motion that she filed today. The judge cut her off saying, "I can read." He noted that he had worked all weekend and would have been available to read this had she filed it earlier. "I've seen it. It's not relevant, you're wasting your time reading it into the record."



Waveydavey did note that, as expected, Orly exhibited that she really does not have the socialization skills of others in the legal community. He said it was rather funny, when she first came into the courtroom she was beaming at her Orlybots -- there were a number of them there -- he was the only Obamabot or Obot there -- she had a huge bag stuffed full of things, as well as her purse, and she marched right up beyond the gate and sat down at counsel table.



The courtroom deputy to whom she had not entered her appearance, spoke to her and told her, "It's not your turn. Go back to the gallery and sit down. Your case will be called," and Orly was quite flustered because she obviously doesn't know the custom of a docket call.



Waveydavey also described her as being very pushy and that the judge, on a number of occasions, cut her off. At one point he called for a recess saying, "You need to calm down."



The judge, several times, indicated that he wants to be able to rule on the merits of the case stating, "This needs to be resolved. We need to get rid of all these doubts."



Orly indicated that she intends to file a FOIA request. The Court said, "Go ahead, but it would be a waste of time. If we're going to hear this on the merits there may be rulings, you know, regarding documents."



END OF REPORT BY WAVEYDAVEY



BY BB: My own commentary is this is not the result we are hoping for today but my sense, and the sense of wavey davey, who was there, is that what the judge wants to do is to set this up so that he basically rules on the merits that Obama is eligible to be president and perhaps to shut down Orly's lawsuits. Whether that will actually satisfy Orly and the birthers, I doubt.





Edit: Please forgive any typos of misspellings, as I did not take the time to proofread it.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#2

Post by realist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:20 pm



While I have no problem with the case proceeding, it still must proceed as the case was filed, meaning starting from scratch, from the complaint forward, I would assume.Judge Carter has already "stretched" the rules beyond measure to do what he did today. I don't for a minute believe he's going to allow normal legal steps to be thrown out the window beyond what he's already done.Federal judges are not in the habit of setting themselves up to be purposely reversed on appeal, which is what foregoing any further procedural rules would do. It'll be interesting to read his order.For instance, I assume he must grant Orly's motion to dismiss the remaining defendants. Will he grant her motion to proceed only on Count I? (How can he? It's moot on its face).Lots of "legal stuff" to discuss here. While I have no problem with and welcome a case being "heard" this one just seems a ridiculous one to do so from. Just my .02.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6220
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#3

Post by neonzx » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 pm



realist, could you post the scribd link to the original complaint up in your first post? That way we can quickly reference it as this thread proceeds. thx
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

dmataconis
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:26 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#4

Post by dmataconis » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:32 pm



This really shouldn't be seen as much of a surprise.



FRCP 4(m) governs what happens if a Plaintiff fails to effect service within the time required:



If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).So, the worst that could've happened to Orly today is that the case would have been dismissed, without prejudice meaning that she could've filed it again. We all know she would've done that.



Also, since the Rule gives the judge the authority to order that service be made within a specified time, it seems clear that he was well within his authority to do what he apparently did today.



I think the interpretation that the Judge wants to get this case before him and rule on the merits is pretty close to being on the mark.



Orly will spin this as a win, but it's really just delaying the inevitable.

CavityCreep
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:09 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#5

Post by CavityCreep » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:36 pm



As suggested in the post above, I suspect Judge Carter didn't want to dismiss a case for lack of service, only to have Orly re-file and serve (or at least try again to serve and end right back in the same place) -- Despite whatever "victory" Orly tries to claim from this -- all that has been accomplished is that the US has accepted service of process, something any (and I really mean any) competent lawyer, paralegal, breathing person should be able to accomplish without a federal judge having to notice a hearing on the matter. So much for the notion that she's really just suing some guy named Barack Obama (err... Soetoro) who happens to have an interesting day job. But the point is that with the service issue out of the way, the US is free to file the inevitable 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Judge Carter is free to then dismiss the matter with prejudice.

Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#6

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:39 pm



Continued from the previous thread ya'll are missing the point (or perhaps I am, wouldn't be the first time) remember that with Orly IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE BC, as far as she is concerned it doesn't matter if the BC says he was born in HI, she claims both his parents must be citizens, so if it proceeds on that single issue alone a RULING FROM THE JUDGE THAT AN NBC IS A CHILD BORN ON US SOIL REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF THE PARENTS PUTS THE ISSUE TO BED. Also Orly could appeal it, and if whatever circuit court of appeals upholds the ruling it could go to the Supremes. This is not about the BC this is about the definition of an NBC.

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#7

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:44 pm



While I have no problem with the case proceeding, it still must proceed as the case was filed, meaning starting from scratch, from the complaint forward, I would assume.Yes, i think it will, unless she amends it.Judge Carter has already "stretched" the rules beyond measure to do what he did today. I don't for a minute believe he's going to allow normal legal steps to be thrown out the window beyond what he's already done.I don't think he stretched the rules. Ninth Circuit (where CD Cal sits) has tons of cases ... uhm ... essentially saying that dismissal is very very last resort. Here, US Attorneys showed up (as I expected) - so would be hard to argue that they can't accept service (I'm a bit suprised that they apparently tried to do so). As other said on the other thread, had he dismissed it, she'd just be able to resubmit a new one/try again. By not dismissing it, all that time is not wasted and the case can proceed "on the merits."I'm with Paul, Butterfly, and others who've said that "merits" likely does NOT mean "merits" the way we think of it. Rather, it means "merits" of whether her complaint states a cause of action, whether there is jurisdiction (standing), etc. To determine, once and for all for Keyes, Drake, et al that they do NOT have standing will be a good decision. They will (should be) thereafter precluded from filing additional cases in state or federal court. (Recall that the state case did not rest on standing grounds.)Federal judges are not in the habit of setting themselves up to be purposely reversed on appeal... .... which is *probably* why he declined to dismiss the case (imho). For instance, I assume he must grant Orly's motion to dismiss the remaining defendants. Yep - no reason not to. Will he grant her motion to proceed only on Count I? (How can he? It's moot on its face).[linkbtn]COMPLAINT,http://www.scribd.com/full/16443502?acc ... qdzfdp0qfm[/linkbtn]First Cause of Action - Declaratory Relief50. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 45 and pray this Court will declare whether under Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 20 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen and that Plaintiffs' attorneys are entitled to a reasonable fee; and51. Grant a judgment including costs of this proceeding and fees as are applicable by law; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.I don't THINK this is moot (in birthers' minds).
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#8

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:47 pm



Continued from the previous thread ya'll are missing the point (or perhaps I am, wouldn't be the first time) remember that with Orly IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE BC, as far as she is concerned it doesn't matter if the BC says he was born in HI, she claims both his parents must be citizens, so if it proceeds on that single issue alone a RULING FROM THE JUDGE THAT AN NBC IS A CHILD BORN ON US SOIL REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF THE PARENTS PUTS THE ISSUE TO BED. Also Orly could appeal it, and if whatever circuit court of appeals upholds the ruling it could go to the Supremes. This is not about the BC this is about the definition of an NBC.Problem is that the judge has no jurisdiction in this case to issue that ruling, because the plaintiffs do not have standing. It's really that simple.(However, her COMPLAINT does still address the COLB issue. She may have changed her focus in her blathering blog, but her COMPLAINT still raises the issue. The Court will -- has to -- rule based on the Complaint. I don't think that the NBC (two parent argument) even appears in the complaint, although I may have missed it ....)
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#9

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:52 pm



Tes - I was following up on something Justin said in the previous thread about hoping that the long form BC is subpoenaed to court, which would be great of course because it would blow all the birfers out of the water, but to Orly the long form BC is no longer relevant to her quest to prove Obama ineligible, as evidenced by the First Cause of Action in the complaint. Of course she will then go into the "adoption" "Indonesian citizen" yada yada yada, but IF the Judge finds that Keyes has standing and then declares that an NBC is a child born on US soil it is game over for the birfers, I would like to see that.

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#10

Post by Curious Blue » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:59 pm



Legal Explanation in the opinion of the poster (disclaimer)



The issue before the court today was Orly's motion for default, and/or reconsideration of the judge's PREVIOUS order which mandated and extended time for proper service of Obama.



The Judge DENIED the relief Orly requested -- i.e., he did NOT enter a default, and stuck to his guns about insisting on service.



Because the US Attorney SHOWED UP to court, the Judge could NOT properly "dismiss" by virtue of the failure to serve, because all impediments to service were removed by the US Attorney's presence. (It could no longer be argued that Obama did not have actual knowledge of the pending law suit).



Obviously he couldn't enter a default, either.



So as a legal matter, leaving aside the fact that it is Orly, the logical and practical thing to do when a defendant shows up in court to object to entry of a default is to resolve the service problem and give the defendant's counsel whatever time they need to respond. Outside of crazy birtherdom lawsuits, it is a simple call.



The whole point of SERVICE is to assure ACTUAL NOTICE to the Defendant of the proceedings; if the Defendant's lawyer shows up in court, that's a really good sign that the defendant knows about the case.



The NEXT step is that the US Attorney will file a motion under Rule 12. In the Rule 12 motion they will point out that Keyes lacks standing, that the statute sued under does not apply, that the issue is moot, and that Orly is bat shit crazy. (OK, the last part will just be hinted at with snide remarks)



Eventually there will be a date for hearing on the Rule 12 dismissal motion, or perhaps under local rules of practice the matter will be submitted without argument (I haven't check the rules to figure out how Carter usually handles that). The Rule 12 dismissal motion will be filed sometime in the next 60 days.



The Judge will GRANT the Rule 12 motion. There will be no discovery, no testimony about birth certificates, no decision on Presidential eligibility. The Judge will GRANT the Rule 12 motion because he HAS to.



Although I wasn't there, I am firmly convinced that whatever talk there was about reaching the "merits" of the case that happened in court today was the Judge's way of trying to explain to get Orly to shut up about the birth certificate and the social security numbers. He was trying to explain, "now's not the time to talk about that, we'll talk about it later." If the Judge said something along the lines that he wants to give the US Attorney time to respond so that he can get to the "merits" -- it is because he MEANS that dismissal for failure to state a justiciable cause of action would be a decision on the "merits". (That is, such a dismissal is NOT a "procedural" determination -- "potentially good law suit, but plaintiff botched service" -- but a substantive determination that the case lacks merit -- "piece of crap lawsuit, I'm throwing it out.")



But it would have been really stupid for the Judge to get into a snit fight with batshit crazy lady in his courtroom, and the Judge did not have proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits ("piece of crap lawsuit, I'm throwing it out.") when the only issue before him was the question of whether the defendant had been properly served or was in default, and/or whether the plaintiff's case should be dismissed for want of prosecution. As noted above, when the US Attorney showed up, it pulled the rug out of any delay-in-service argument, because it solved the problem that was preventing the case from going forward.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#11

Post by PatGund » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:01 pm



Tes - I was following up on something Justin said in the previous thread about hoping that the long form BC is subpoenaed to court, which would be great of course because it would blow all the birfers out of the water, but to Orly the long form BC is no longer relevant to her quest to prove Obama ineligible, as evidenced by the First Cause of Action in the complaint. Of course she will then go into the "adoption" "Indonesian citizen" yada yada yada, but IF the Judge finds that Keyes has standing and then declares that an NBC is a child born on US soil it is game over for the birfers, I would like to see that.Nope. Then it goes into:1) "It doesn't matter that he was born in Hawaii because he lost his US citizenship in Indonesia"2) "The BC shown the courts is a forgery."3) "The BC sent the courts from the Hawaiian Department of Health is a forgery, they're part of the conspiracy"4) "The judge is trying to get on the supreme court and the mix is in"Any I missed??

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#12

Post by Curious Blue » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:06 pm



(However, her COMPLAINT does still address the COLB issue. She may have changed her focus in her blathering blog, but her COMPLAINT still raises the issue. The Court will -- has to -- rule based on the Complaint. I don't think that the NBC (two parent argument) even appears in the complaint, although I may have missed it ....)Absolutely true, but the COMPLAINT is based on some executive order issued by Bush that doesn't apply to Obama's eligibility... so the only ISSUE that the Judge can rule on is whether or not Keyes can sue Obama pursuant to that executive order. Since the answer has got to be "no he can't"... no one ever gets to the COLB thing.

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#13

Post by Curious Blue » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:11 pm



As suggested in the post above, I suspect Judge Carter didn't want to dismiss a case for lack of service, Actually, as I noted, I think when the US Attorney showed up to Court, the Judge didn't really have the choice any more. Essentially, constructive service was achieved at that point. Its quite possible that had the US Attorney NOT appeared and NOT filed a "Statement of Interest", that the Judge would either have dismissed the case, OR given Orly a relatively short time to complete service. In other words.. it wouldn't make for a good appellate record for the Judge to dismiss a case for failure of service when the defendant's attorney is right there in the courtroom and has already filed papers, even though the papers do not technically constitute an appearance on behalf of the defendant.Edit: I would add that if you look at the Statement of Interest filed by the US Attorney - [/break1]obamaconspiracy.org/wp-contentsrc="uploads/2009/07/Keyes-Obama-7-7-09.pdf]http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-conte ... 7-7-09.pdf -- it does NOT ask for dismissal. It merely addresses the service issue and requests denial of Orly's reconsideration motion. So whatever was going on, the US Attorneys office got exactly what it said it wanted.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#14

Post by nbc » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:16 pm



Tes - I was following up on something Justin said in the previous thread about hoping that the long form BC is subpoenaed to court, which would be great of course because it would blow all the birfers out of the water, but to Orly the long form BC is no longer relevant to her quest to prove Obama ineligible, as evidenced by the First Cause of Action in the complaint. Of course she will then go into the "adoption" "Indonesian citizen" yada yada yada, but IF the Judge finds that Keyes has standing and then declares that an NBC is a child born on US soil it is game over for the birfers, I would like to see that.Other than that now they have standing to take the issue to appeal and SCOTUS

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#15

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:25 pm





(However, her COMPLAINT does still address the COLB issue. She may have changed her focus in her blathering blog, but her COMPLAINT still raises the issue. The Court will -- has to -- rule based on the Complaint. I don't think that the NBC (two parent argument) even appears in the complaint, although I may have missed it ....)Absolutely true, but the COMPLAINT is based on some executive order issued by Bush that doesn't apply to Obama's eligibility... so the only ISSUE that the Judge can rule on is whether or not Keyes can sue Obama pursuant to that executive order. Since the answer has got to be "no he can't"... no one ever gets to the COLB thing.What kinds of rulings by Judge Carter would the Birfers have properly understood to be victories for Orly?



1) A finding that Obama is in default, with consequences that are not clear to me.



2) A finding that Bush's EO applies in the case of a President who took office before the order became effective and that proceedings under that EO may go forward.



3) An order to Obama and/or the U.S. Government to produce proof that Obama is eligible to be President.



Did I miss a conceivable ruling that would actually have been favorable to Orly? I know that none of these was a realistic possibility, but isn't one of these what Birfers should have been wishing for?



All that seems to have happened is that Judge Carter granted Orly more time to effect proper service upon Obama as President of the United States (not as a private citizen).



The bench remarks about time to settle this need not have been meant to refer to time to settle the question of whether Obama is eligible. They may simply have meant "time to get this law suit and those like it out of Federal courts."



As I read it, this was not Epic Fail for Orly, but had it been, she would most definitely been back at some Federal court somewhere with another lawsuit. If I were a Birfer, I would be very worried not that the Birth Certificate will be obtained on discovery and shown to be valid (which I think they expect to be the case in any event, as I believe this is all pretext for causing disruption) but instead that the ability of Birfer lawyers to continue to file frivolous lawsuits will be seriously jeopardized by what comes in 60 or 90 days. And by that time, the CA Bar may have acted to disbar Orly and some objection may have been filed to the presence of Lincoln as a "law clerk." This could all turn out to be very bad for the Birfers.



NSFW, R Rated

As for Schadenfreude, a delicious emotion:

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9B-ZoS0wvU
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#16

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:34 pm



As suggested in the post above, I suspect Judge Carter didn't want to dismiss a case for lack of service, only to have Orly re-file and serve (or at least try again to serve and end right back in the same place) -- Despite whatever "victory" Orly tries to claim from this -- all that has been accomplished is that the US has accepted service of process, something any (and I really mean any) competent lawyer, paralegal, breathing person should be able to accomplish without a federal judge having to notice a hearing on the matter. So much for the notion that she's really just suing some guy named Barack Obama (err... Soetoro) who happens to have an interesting day job.



But the point is that with the service issue out of the way, the US is free to file the inevitable 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Judge Carter is free to then dismiss the matter with prejudice.Cavity and dmataconis, you are both on the right track. Wavey Davey's cell phone ran out of juice during our first telephone call, and after he recharged his phone he called back. Judge Carter repeatedly pointed out that he could dismiss for failure of service, but that the case could be re-filed and re-served and that would simply delay the ultimate hearing of the case -- as Judge Carter put it, this could simply go back and forth, and then up through appeals, throughout the duration of Obama's term of office. "Let's get this to a hearing on the merits, we need to resolve all doubts."



Some additional observations by Wavey:



The case was called at 9:50 AM. Mr DeJute had his first opportunity to address the court at 10:05. He spoke briefly, and then Orly started again. She ramped up the crazy until, at 10:15 the judge ordered a recess and told her to go out to the hall. "You are going to go calm down" were his exact words.



The hearing resumed at 10:25. At 10:45 Orly began demanding (not requesting) that the court give her discovery. She wanted a 60-day discovery period. She rattled off her list of documents. She told the court that the image of the COLB is insufficient and she wants the original BC. Then she demanded (not requested) that the court grant her a default judgment. Orly was not happy about having to re-serve and wait 60 days for a response pleading.



At 11:00 Judge Carter stated that the Motion she filed earlier today "has just been handed to me." He didn't want to hear that motion. The hearing concluded at 11:15 - nearly an hour and a half!!!



According to Wavey, Judge Carter cut off Orly numerous times. Whenever Mr. DeJute was speaking or when the court was in a give-and-take with the Asst US Attorney, Orly would interrupt. "Can I respond?" Judge Carter responded sharply, "No, you cannot. It is not your turn." DeJute brought up the matter of the failure to serve the other three defendants (Rice, Mueller and Hager). Referring to Count II of the Complaint (asking to stay the inauguration), Judge Carter snarkily remarked "In case you haven't noticed, the inauguration was months ago." Orly stipulated to dismissal of Counts II and III, and the Court granted the dismissal.



Two Orlybots sitting behind Wavey failed to turn off their cell phones and both phones rang during the proceedings. They were talking excessively, and Judge Carter was clearly annoyed. At one point Judge Carter stopped the proceedings to address the two women, with a snarky comment "Are you assisting me on this case?"



Wavey was impressed by Judge Carter. He offers this opinion: Judge Carter is "a veritable wellspring of patience and professionalism."
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#17

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:35 pm



Legal Explanation in the opinion of the poster (disclaimer)



The issue before the court today was Orly's motion for default, and/or reconsideration of the judge's PREVIOUS order which mandated and extended time for proper service of Obama.



The Judge DENIED the relief Orly requested -- i.e., he did NOT enter a default, and stuck to his guns about insisting on service. ...Agreed! And, the fact that the Gov now has 60 days - from today - to respond confirms what PJers have said all along -- i.e., that UNTIL TODAY, Obama HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED.



I pretty much agree with every other sentence in CB's great summary as well ....
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

tmohr00
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:52 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#18

Post by tmohr00 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:40 pm



Still no word from Our Lady of the Nitrous Oxide on today's events, I see.

dmataconis
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:26 am

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#19

Post by dmataconis » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:42 pm



What motion did she file today ?

CavityCreep
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:09 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#20

Post by CavityCreep » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:42 pm



Some additional observations by Wavey:The case was called at 9:50 AM. Mr DeJute had his first opportunity to address the court at 10:05. He spoke briefly, and then Orly started again. She ramped up the crazy until, at 10:15 the judge ordered a recess and told her to go out to the hall. "You are going to go calm down" were his exact words.That's it -- I'm going to have to order a transcript of the hearing.

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#21

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:49 pm



What motion did she file today ?See here,http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 250#p46568
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#22

Post by realist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:58 pm



realist, could you post the scribd link to the original complaint up in your first post? That way we can quickly reference it as this thread proceeds. thxDone
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#23

Post by bogus info » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:04 pm



Charles Lincoln was present as a "law clerk."Something is very wrong with this picture. Should this guy even be allowed court even as a law clerk? :?

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#24

Post by LM K » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:06 pm



My post was added to the first post of this thread...thus, snip!
"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

#25

Post by realist » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:08 pm



BB wrote...udge Carter snarkily remarked "In case you haven't noticed, the inauguration was months ago." Orly stipulated to dismissal of Counts II and III, and the Court granted the dismissal.Of course, we had not seen his orders granting dismissal of Counts II and III, nor whether he's dismissed the other defendants except Obama, but i would assume that's the case.



That said, all that remains of her complaint, Count I, at least as I remember it (did not go back and read yet) is basically the count based on the nonapplicalble Bush executive order, which is no case at all. Will she file an amended complaint? Won't she have to, to have any case to present at all? (assuming she can withstand a motion to dismiss, which I'm sure will show up in about 59 days.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”