Up-to-Date Reporting on Barnett vs. Obama from Santa Ana Federal Courthouse

Give Us Liberty ^ | October 5, 2009

[Deepest End]

10:12 am pst

A commenter has asked if the case has been thrown out, I have NOT heard from Gary so the information can not be verified as accurate. Remember Obots like to play on the blogs

(snip)

[LibertyRocks]

Thanks, it would appear that Dreams was already done before her death then (or at least in the final copy stages).

[SeaHawkFan]

I think Kreep made the statement because Carter stated that jurisdiction for quo warranto actions is in the USDC for the District of Columbia.

Has nothing to do with what he thinks of the merits of the case.

Would not be surprised if he dismisses the suit based on lack of jurisdiction and hint that he believes that there is merit and that an action should be filed in DC.

[kidd]

Well, what’s interesting is the FOI request made by TerriK.

However, Leo Donofrio is no longer representing TerriK.

Background: A person who uses the (false) name of TerriK has made numerous requests for information from the Hawaii Dept of Health. She believes that statements made by certain directors indicate that the birth records have been altered or ammended. Whenever such a record is altered or ammended, a record is maintained of the alteration. Hawaiian law clearly states that these records of alteration are to be disclosed to the public upon request and without delay. TerriK has been refused such records and has a paper trail.

TerriK most definitely has standing in regards to access to records of an altered BC. I haven’t heard if this issue is proceeding, however it may be the most solid back-up in case Orly cannot convince Judge Carter of standing.

[StonyMan451]

Just a legal question here. Can any lawyer out there explain what constitutes “legal standing” in a case? If, for example, H.R. 3200 (health care) is passed and signed by Obama, wouldn’t just about anyone have legal standing to claim that H.R. 3200 was not, in fact, the law of the land because it was not signed by a legitimate president?

My point is this... Can’t we all just file suit and have a legitimate claim to “standing” because we’re all affected by any “law” he has signed?

[RebelTex]

Thanks, El Gato, for the update.

Now, maybe I can actually get something done today, LOL.

Will check back this evening.

RT

[JewishRighter]

It’s been a long time since I’ve had to spell out a definition of standing, but here goes: standing means that a person (or entity, eg. corp.) “stands” in a legal position to be permitted to bring a particular kind of legal action in a particular court. One of the key elements is that the party who seeks standing is aggrieved or otherwise affected by the conduct or occurrences which form the basis of the suit.

A simple example would be that the person injured in an automobile accident has standing to bring an action against the negligent driver(s), but his next-door neighbor, who had nothing to do with the accident, does not.

In the case of actions against particular governing bodies, standing may stem from various sources, particularly statutes and case law defining standing. It is not unusual to find a statutory framework that provides no standing for citizens to sue either the government or other entities, but leaves that right to bring the action to a prosecutorial authority, such as the U.S. Attorney for the particular district or state Attorneys General for particular states and so on. Sometimes standing is founded on the plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer to the governing body and may bring the action based on the effect of the government action on him personally as a taxpayer.

Applied to the B0/BC case, there seems to be a question as to whether any of the plaintiffs have the right to bring the action under various sources of legal authority, but primarily the Constitution itself. The question can be articulated as follows: Who has standing to bring an action to challenge a President or Presidential Candidate’s eligibility to run for or hold that office? Is it enough to be a member of the armed services, arguing that she is affected by the question because it determines the validity of the authority behind her activation orders which ultimately rests with the CIC?

A closely related question is one of jurisdiction, meaning what Court or other body can hear such a case. The question would be: who is authorized to determine whether a person qualifies as a “natural born citizen” as that term is used in the qualifications language of the US Constitution? Is it any federal judge as a “constitutional question”? Is it only the Congress or one house of Congress? Is it only the US Supreme Court?

Some other people here have cited some statutory language in the US Code and some cases dealing at least with the NBC question.

Hope this is helpful.

[Faith]

Thanks for your explanation.

[U.S. Army Retired]

Interesting comments by the Judge today. It looks like he will toss the case. One comment from the Judge: He said whatever his decision is that either side can appeal to a higher court. It looks like he is just going to pass it off to another court and gave them a heads up to prepare their appeals to be submitted.

Other actions by the judge:

#1 Judge Carter pointed out that the case was unique and that there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly.

#2 Regarding military plaintiffs, Judge Carter mentioned that there was a ruling in the 9th circuit which denied standing to oath takers on the basis that this was not a particularized injury.

#3 Judge Carter questioned on what basis his court could issue a quo warrento proceeding, when the D.C. court had jurisdiction over this kind of proceeding.

#4 Judge Carter questioned the Defense’s counsel, regarding the method of impeachment and how that would address this controversy.

#5 In all, Judge Carter was very concerned about standing claims and wanted to know what the actual injuries were, and how standing was being justified.

[plenipotentiary]

“We’ve seen legitimate COLBs that say “Filed” rather than “Accepted”. Just a change of wording.”

I’ve never seen them. Show me please.

[StonyMan451]

Thank you, JewishRighter.

[freekitty]

I hope he doesn’t wimp out. All he has to do is look a the no jobs, the government taking over vast amounts of the American economy.

[El Gato]

RS, Why did Gary (is this Gary Kreep ?) state that judge was ‘leaning to grant MTD ?’.

Not Gary Kreep. Who knows why he, the other Gary, thought Judge was leaning to dismiss. Taking counsel of his own fears perhaps? All are vulnerable to that, even those that won't admit it.

[JewishRighter]

You’re quite welcome.

[JewishRighter]

My pleasure. Hope it helps

[El Gato]

I know that sudden, shocking news about their birth, parentage or other lies that have been kept from them, are frequent stimulus for angst and rebellion in teens.

Not that teens need much stimulus for angst and rebellion. Most just get over it, some let it take them over, for life.

[STARWISE]

Yes .. it’s written like he’s within walls
and doesn’t want those walls breeched.
Unusual, to say the least.

[spokeshave]

“I’m waiting as fast as I can.”

LOL! Never heard that one before, good one

...just hurry up and wait........

[LibertyRocks]

I could definitely see where discovery in that case might make things interesting in any appeals of other cases if it goes forward...

I just read a long entry on TerriK’s blog that she put up yesterday — I do think she’s making some long assumptions (esp. as she’s basing her understanding of stuff on laws in a different state at this point), but there are definite *gems* in her interpretation of what’s going on in Hawaii’s DoH.

Thanks for the info. about Donofrio not representing her any longer... I’ll have to find his blog (lost my bookmarks in a Firefox “accident”), and see if he has stated a reason for that.

It’ll be interesting to see what she does from here on out (if she hires a different lawyer, etc...). I was thinking that she might run into a block of some sort in regards to the amended birth certificate if it was from Barack’s adoption in Indonesia (if it was reported here), but I have received different info. from different people regarding the status of open adoption records in that state and haven’t had time to review the statutes myself at this point.

It’s definitely an interesting case she’s got as it would seem that Hawaii’s own laws in regards to the statements made and where the information came from being shown to the public, and the restrictions regarding Vital Records seem to be at odds (again, if the closed records statutes are still in place in Hawaii re: adoption records).

[rocco55]

I don’t want to sound like a “half empty” person either, but to me, this case is a ‘slam-dunk’ for the Plaintiffs as far as going forward is concerned. I thought last hearing’s transcripts indicated that Judge Carter made a statement that a motion to dismiss action is ‘rarely granted’ (paraphrasing) in a case like this. Initially, Judge Carter was ready to rule on the MTD on Friday 9/11, but Kreeps wanted more time.

I want the Usurper and his gang of legal thugs nailed more than anything, but for Judge request more time to review the new paperwork to me is ‘not’ a good sign...the initial innocence and zeal which he initially exhibited is waning and he is probably under an INCREDIBLE amount of pressure to ‘not’ proceed with thus case. (in my opinion)

Lastly, I hope Leo continues to persevere ! We get little glimmers of hope with the new petitioners, but thus far, still are having VERY limited cooperation from the criminals at the State level in HI...this cover-up is BEYOND what we can imagine...

I hope I am wrong !

[thouworm]

Leo’s blog

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[Fractal Trader]

Not a lawyer here, but I heard that standing is a “doctrine” which was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1920s. It is not referred to in the Constitution and it is not defined via statute. Is this correct?

[unspun]

TerriK INVESTIGATION: Foreshadowing foreshadowing [Please review the following email exchange between TerriK and DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo. This exchange foreshadowed the UIPA requests. I was going to work this into Part 3, but it deserves its own headline. Those making compilations of the TerriK Investigation Report should insert the following post directly before Part 1. I am still preparing Part 3 of the report.] FORESHADOWING The timing of Hawaii Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino’s July 27, 2009 Press Release appears suspiciously related to TerriK’s initial questioning of DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo – commenced earlier that day at 7:20 AM EDT (1:20 AM in Hawaii) – many hours before the infamous press release by Fukino was made public. TerriK was initially interested in the question of whether President Obama’s birth record might reflect that he possessed an amended birth certificate. She had taken notice that provisions of law in Hawaii enabled one to obtain an original “amended birth certificate” even if one was born in a foreign country. TerriK had not yet been exposed to the the UIPA or the second press release which mentioned “vital records” (plural), and so she had not yet made the assumption – for the purpose of making a specific UIPA request – that Obama’s vital records had been amended. The following email was simply intended to determine whether DoH officials could provide information as to any amendments that might have been recorded. Later, after analyzing Fukino’s second press release, TerriK assumed such records did exist. But the following email predates that assumption: From: [TerriK - real name and email redacted] Date: July 27, 2009 7:20:20 AM EDT To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov Subject: Your help is appreciated. Dear Ms. Okubo, Can the State of Hawaii verify that they have the Amended (Original) birth record for President Barack Obama on file in accordance with state policies, whether digital, paper or otherwise? Thank you and I apologize for your trouble in asking–I can’t imagine how this issue must be overwhelming you. You have been extremely patient and professional from what I can discern. But, I feel the best thing for me, is just to ask you guys myself. Thank you again… Here was Okubo’s non-responsive reply: From: “Okubo, Janice S.” Date: July 27, 2009 5:45:53 PM EDT To: [TerriK - real name redacted] Subject: RE: Your help is appreciated. Aloha [TerriK] , Attached is the statement issued by the state last year in the Fall. Janice Okubo Communications Office Hawaii State Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: (808) 586-4442 Fax: (808) 586-4444 email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov The original Press Release from October 31, 2008 was attached. You can see from the time stamp above, this email was sent by Okubo at 5:45 PM EDT (11:45 AM in Hawaii). The second Fukino press release – wherein she unequivocally stated that she had seen records on file with the DoH proving Obama was born in Hawaii and that he was a “natural-born American citizen” – wouldn’t be released until later that evening. And nobody had a clue it was coming. I don’t believe Fukino knew she would be making a second press release that day. Otherwise, Okubo’s initial response might have been delayed until they were ready to make it public. It appears that something happened to force their hand. At 9:00 PM EDT (3:00 PM in Hawaii), TerriK sent the following email to Okubo: From [TerriK - real name redacted] Date: July 27, 2009 9:00:29 PM EDT To: “Okubo, Janice S.” Date: July 27, 2009 11:45:54 PM EDT To: [TerriK - real name redacted] Subject: RE: Your help is appreciated. Attached is the statement issued today by the Hawaii State Director of Health. The director has never used the term “AMMENDED” (sic) in any of her issued statements regarding this issue. Attached to this email was the actual press release issued by DoH Director Fukino on July 27th. TerriK was completely shocked at the incredible dual statements laid before her on official DoH letterhead: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” She received it at 11:45PM EDT on July 27, 2009 and then stayed up all night posting her story in comments to the Texas Darlin blog. That blog is no longer active and no archive apparently remains. The next day she hit the web hard telling people about the DoH emails and attachments. You can see examples of this frenzy at Free Republic (posted as Miss Tickly). Unfortunately, even a week later people were trying to make her look bad and disputing the veracity of her claims. Specifically, Ron Polarik disputed that a digital copy of the press release was in TerriK’s possession or even that one existed. Here is a comment he left on August 4, 2009 at Free Republic: To:MissTickly… There was NO PRESS RELEASE. It was a direct statement made to Dan Nagaso of the Honolulu Advertiser. An “electronic press release? You mean, like an email that nobosy (sic) else has seen except you? 51 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:38:36 PM by Polarik There was confusion on this issue because it took the Hawaii DoH a long time to post a copy of the July 27th press release online. A We The People USA blog post documents that at 1:46 PM on July 28th, no copy of the July 27th press release was available at the Hawaii DoH web site. If you put the digital copy of the Press Release sent to TerriK by Okubo side by side with the Press Release that exists now on the DoH website, you will see one slight difference – the word “more” at the bottom of TerriK’s copy. Looking back retrospectively, TerriK’s questions submitted to Okubo early in the morning on July 27th appear to have been the catalyst for the notorious press release later that evening. Was this a knee jerk reaction to a line of questioning which – if explored in light of the UIPA – had the potential to force the release of President Obama’s vital records? It certainly appears logical, but I can’t answer that question conclusively. However, I do feel very confident that the laws in Hawaii – UIPA, Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d), OIP opinion letters and case law – will force the release of vital records and all other information consulted for the public statements made by DoH Director Fukino. Comprehensive legal analysis of those laws will be posted in Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report. by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

[El Gato]

Not a lawyer here, but I heard that standing is a “doctrine” which was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1920s. It is not referred to in the Constitution and it is not defined via statute. Is this correct?

There's always been standing in civil cases. However the notion that mere voters or citizens do not have standing to contest the Constitutionality of laws or government actions is fairly knew.

Here's an article Substantial Interest: Standing from law.oncle.com.

[El Gato]

Oh Good Grief! is fairly knew new.

[STARWISE]

Oh goodness .. that’s unreadable.
Can you please repost with formatting .. ;)

[unspun]

Star, either in a rush, I had something I didn’t want in my clipboard or another oddity.

I meant just just post a reminder about tonight’s “Awakening” with Leo D. Oh, well.

I’ll post a couple notes in my own threads that remind folks that it’s archived. There was actually some big news — aA massive petition campaign for Quo Warranto.

I’ll be writing about it in I.O.