Posted on 09/17/2009 11:01:02 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
Excerpts: "Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery (the "Motion"). The Court finds the Motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R. CIV. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion."
***
"The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery.
All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action."
(Excerpt) Read more at ia301520.us.archive.org ...
Not unexpected. I will be surprised however if he grants dismissal.
I think it IS necessary to opposing the motion to dismiss. One needs to be able to demonstrate that the electors and the Congress did not require reasonable proof of NBC. That proof needs to be submitted to the court. But failing that, discovery still can, and should, be granted at the October hearing.
That's a pretty big exception. It may constrain how the defendants may argue for dismissal, without exposing themselves to unwanted discovery.
Any bets on this one?
I think this judge is trying to be fair. I also think he smells a rat where Hussein is concerned but he feels it necessary to allow the defense the same consideration that he’d give any other defendant.
Gosh, who fights discovery so hard?
Someone with something to hide, maybe?
Like the same person who’s spent millions to keep that something hidden?
The government lawyers are making a constitutional argument to dismiss. Not the court’s business, they say, but that of the EC and the Congress. Too late, say they. Plaintiff ought to be able to show that evidence exists that the EC and Congress could have been looking at, seems to me.
It's my understanding the Government is arguing that the situation is one of Congressional jurisdiction, rather than Judicial, and therefore that no right of due process is lost by the court denying it's own power to hear the case (because Congress can address it at any time).
With the DOJ and Perkins Coie working their tails off to run interference for the boy marxist, Judge Carter is going to have to be the Marine that he is to stand up to them.
Ha. Obama would sue congress in the COURTS if they tried. But they won’t because the GOP is still spineless.
A couple of questions, anyone -
can a defendant appeal a rejected motion to dismiss to another court?
can a defendant appeal a rejected stay of discovery to another court?
Marine first, competent jurist second? Let me know how that works out, OK.
LOL, yep.
Any judge not enamored with the boy marxist knows that their is a rotten fish being hidden by the boy marxist. But it will take a spine to see that it is exposed.
The Court will accommodate Plaintiffs’ concerns by hearing any
proposed new trial dates at the October 5, 2009 Scheduling Conference.....
This sounds like a positive. With a firm trial date discovery would have to be issued sooner or later. I guess.
Sounds procedural more than anything. The law states that the motion to dismiss has to be dealt with first unless there is some compelling reason, and that the magstrate can rule to order discovery in the case that the plaintif needs some information in order to defeat the motion to dismiss. Well, would it not defeat the motion to dismiss if adoption pperwork were availible to prove there is reason to believe the potus is not an NBC??
Hey, I get it. You want a judge, preferably Carter, to ignore multiple Rules of Civil Procedure, The US Code and at least three different well-established doctrines of American jurisprudence, to say nothing of the completely ignoring destroying the separation of power, so that he may reach a conclusion that you think is just.
Yep, no judicial activism there, none at all.
I’m not at all educated when it comes to law, but isn’t that sort of circular reasoning? The jurisdiction lies in the same congress that didn’t confirm eligibilty in the first place?
It seems there must be some sort of remedy for citizens against their representatives if they did not verify eligibility.
Yes, except that evidence of substantive information is being required before discovery will be granted to discover that evidence of substantive information.
Welcome to administrative law.
Fed Discovery Procedure bump! ;-)
No, I want Judge Carter to understand that NO AUTHORITY AT ALL has vetted and verified the boy marxists birth circumstances. Therefore, allowing discovery of in a case vital to our republic.
Yes. It's called "voting them out of office", to include your own state's Secretary of State (the state office holder most likely responsible for placing names on statewide ballots and ensuring those candidates are eligible to be on those ballots).
Legal challenges may be brought to those ballots, and they frequently are, before the election is contested, not after.
Uh, EC and Congress were derelict in their duty?
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama's name appeared on 50 state ballots and one district ballot, with the approval of the respective Secretaries of State - to whom the responsibility of verifying the candidate's eligibility is entrusted - would seem to countervail your argument.
“Uh, EC and Congress were derelict in their duty?”
Well, yes, come to think of it, I believe they were. That’s right.
Well, considering 49 states received signed declarations from Pelosi and the DNC that removed the phrase “is qualified”, you might want to rethink that.
Are there any prizes involved for a correct answer?
Tell us one (1) positive action taken to verify Barry’s eligibility by any one (1) Secretary of State. Thanks in advance.
Required or not, 49 states have a signed document that is meaningless in this regard.
“No, I want Judge Carter to understand that NO AUTHORITY AT ALL has vetted and verified the boy marxists birth circumstances. “
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama’s name appeared on 50 state ballots and one district ballot, with the approval of the respective Secretaries of State - to whom the responsibility of verifying the candidate’s eligibility is entrusted - would seem to countervail your argument.’
Appearance of a name on a ballot in any state does NOT confirm that any state did any vetting.
It is my understanding that the vetting should have occurred at the Democrat Party Selection Committee before they even chose NObama as their candidate.
Howard Dean and others are the core of this mess.
The states could have thrown a monkey wrench into the works, but they just didn’t believe those of us who were convinced that NObama was NOT eligible, neither then nor now.
I would think that states would be very wary about the 2010 election.
Oh, good grief. You might NOT want to believe every crazy conspiracy theory you read on obscure blogs. I suggest you start thinking for yourself and applying a little common sense to outlandish claims.
I did a little digging when Canada News whatever did this story. I thought to myself, "Self, I wonder if each individual state has a pro forma declaration that must be completed or demands that certain language be used verbatim, mandated by state statute, which would account for the varying forms that have been seen"
Sure enough, I looked at my own state's (OH) "Declaration of Candidacy" statute, and that's exactly what I found. You can find it here. In fact, there are dozens of different "Declaration of Candidacy" form for the state of Ohio, depending on a multitude of factors that are outlined, in great detail, by the Ohio Secretary of State. Do you think other states have similar, but not necessarily matching forms? I'm going to go out on a limb, and predict "Yes they do".
Remember, we don't have national elections in this country. We have 50 different state elections, that every four or two years are held on the exact same day, big difference. 50 different elections = equals 50 different "Declarations of Candidacy" forms or varying requirements for state-specific language that must be included on those forms or declarations.
What's really pathetic is it took me literally FIVE minutes to do this very elementary research. But, that MORON who authored the original tin-foil statement either wasn't smart enough to do the research himself, or was afraid of what he'd find if he did.
Isn’t that what discovery is for? Hawaii has the adoption records.....
That's certainly protesting too much, the crowd might say.
There's an activist here, all right. One who would twist any opportunity toward personal destruction of a conservative, while turning a blind eye to true evil that spends beaucoup bucks effectively hiding what all American citizens are routinely, daily required to produce, under the weight of great penalty from many different governmental and other offices.
Did you not notice our own DOJ spending serious money and time out of multiple AUSA's days to take sides on this issue in a way that support's Barry's personal position for what many seasoned lawyers see in their motion to dismiss as the most tenuous of juxtapositions of logic?
Do you entertain for the most fleeting moment that the DOJ performed an unbiased review of all parties' interests' in this case before instructing the AUSAs about what their work product for Judge Carter's court was to be?
Govermental agencies working on Barry's behalf wield a far greater potential to thwart justice in this case than Judge Carter, pissant, me, or any aspiring activist here. Judge Carter, even if he doesn't mess up in one iota may well see his work scrutinized by hundreds of lawyers seeking ways to have his opinions overturned. Much additional money (that very few individuals have) could spent in such energies--ostensibly seeking justice. Why is Barry not footing his bills himself, as, say, Scooter Libby was forced to face?
Barry's anti-disclosure forces clearly work at cross purposes to the previous representations Barry has personally made to persuade voters, so Judge Carter necessarily is going to need a good spine to see justice served, whichever view he says should be victorious.
HF
I have no idea - nor do I care. This case is about someone asking the JUDICIARY, not the executive branch, to verify someone's eligibility - ex post facto, no less. It's not up to the JUDICIARY to ensure candidates are eligible, it's up to the EXECUTIVE branch in the INDIVIDUAL states to ensure that candidates that they have placed on their ballots have met the minimum eligibility requirements.
If you don't think you particular state Secretary of State did his or her job, it seems like you might want to expend a little more energy getting them replaced, than engaging in wildly frivolous lawsuits; Lawsuits that don't come close to meeting the threshold of standing or justiciability .
I didn’t need to do any research. I already knew they have different forms. The point is what Pelosi and Co. sent to the states, other than HI, does not say shit about him being qualified for the office. So what are you hanging your hat on, skippy? His COLB that he released an image of to KOS and Factcheck??
Some thoughts on this matter:
In the opening statement of the motion to dismiss, the DOJ lays the responsibility upon the Congress to “qualify” the Presidential candidate. The only job of Congress in “qualifying” the President-elect is that they insure that he or she receives the required number of electoral votes required by the Constitution. It is absurd to expect that Congress members would be physically or mentally able to fulfill the duty of making certain a candidate is eligible to be on an election ballot.
To simplify the election process, each state has their own election laws.
In WV, Obama signed a sworn statement that he was constitutionally eligible to place his name upon our ballot just as he did in Arizona and perhaps other states whose laws required this.
In Hawaii, the state required that the National and State Democrat party officials swear sworn statements as to his constitutional eligibility, which they did.
I don’t know if any states or the parties require a birth certificate to prove eligibility to be a candidate. If not, they are relying upon the candidate or the National and State parties’ sworn statements. It is FRAUD to swear a false statement. This is a CRIME.
I wrote to my representatives BEFORE the electoral votes were certified. Senator Byrd, who is often described as a constitutional scholar, replied to me that it was up to the states to make sure that their elections were handled in accordance with the Constitution. He also indicated that a complaint would offer Obama the opportunity to defend himself in the court system.
It is unreasonable to expect a Federal Agency would be in charge of each state’s elections and ballots.
Governors,legislators, and state office holders of each state also swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. So each state is responsible for assuring it’s elections are lawful. All Congress does is certify that the candidate got the required number of votes required by the Constitution. Any educated and responsible attorney should recognize this. Their motion is truly ridiculous.
If Obama lied when he signed the forms to get on the ballot (and we know from his background that he taught Constitutional Law at the University in Chicago), he is criminally guilty of fraud.
We citizens are required to produce birth certificates for a wide range of situations. We must “prove” our statements. My husband and I had to do that just last March to the retirement board. They made us bring certified copies of our birth certificates to a planning meeting even though we had signed statements prior.
This whole thing is stupid. Just like enrolling in school, playing sports, getting a driver’s license,and a myriad of oother circumstances, noone should be allowed to be on a ballot for any office (or be allowed to vote) who does not submit a proper birth certificate to prove their citizenship to the Secretary of State, a Local Clerk’s office, or their party officials who are charged with handling the election process. There are more liars than not in today’s society. All the more reason for expecting proof of statements.
On another note:
The Constitution says :
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States “
Would it not be a violation of the above when Hawaii has a law allowing a foreign born person to record, receive, and use for lawful purposes, a birth certificate stating they were born in Hawaii, when in fact they were not? Isn’t this circumventing my Constitutional right to expect that my vote is for a “natural born” president or even a citizen president for that matter? Since there has been no amendment changing the natural born provision, it is my right to expect that I am voting for a president who meets this qualification and proves such being that I am required to submit my birth certificate frequently to comply with the laws of my land. I happily do so knowing full well, I do not want to live in a land of the lawless.
Lawyer-wise, the difference between Perkins Coie and Orly Taitz is about the same magnitude as the difference between the Super Bowl and of 3rd grade playground game.
Ms. Taitz has made I don't know how many stupid unforced errors; and Perkins Coie's got big-time players who can help her make some forced errors, too. Their strategy will at the very least be to keep this thing tied in knots until Ms. Taitz runs out of time and money.
Or, they'll just squash her.
She needs to find a real and serious lawyer to work this stuff.
No, that's a trained lawyer understanding how the law actually works, not how someone wishes it to work.
Apparently, like Pissant, you want some jurist to completely ignore reams of statutes and rules and decades - even centuries - of judicial precedent and numerous well-established doctrines of American jurisprudence because you want the court to act the way you want it to act to reach a conclusion that you think is just - THAT is judicial activism in its rawest and most dangerous form.
If you can't understand fairly simple and elementary concepts of standing, justiciability and separation of powers and the insurmountable barriers and limitations those concepts place on a case like this getting passed a motion to dismiss, I'm not sure I can help you. But, if you've ever wondered why no notable conservative attorney has taken or even commented on these cases, that's the reason why.
Precedent? When was the last president sued for eligibility?
When you’re done calling people with valid points morons maybe you can answer why state officials rubber stamping a candidacy without doing any fact checking or even receiving ANY documentary proof of eligibility should be accepted as any kind of endorsement as to a candidates eligibility...
Why are you resorting to name calling ,, is it because your arguments don’t hold up?
Nope. The precedents of justiciability and standing which are found in Brandeis' Aschwander(sp?) Rules found in his concurring opinion from Aschwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Frothingham v. Mellon, respectively. Those individual doctrines have been upheld in countless cases since.
Has to do with the citizenship of his dad. Obama is not an NBC because his dad was british. Adoption records would show that. Obama was born a dual citizen at best. Can’t be potus with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.