Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: All
Breaking news re: the Ca. case which this 1964 doc is a part of:

Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633550/03118745409

Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Ex Parte Application for Order re Discovery Matter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633565/03118746941

and

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633559/03118746940

10,251 posted on 09/10/2009 11:10:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid

What you have posted is
1)an order referring (handing off) the discovery motion to the magistrate judge
2)&3) requests by Obama’s attorneys to have all discovery stayed (stopped)


10,255 posted on 09/11/2009 7:30:57 AM PDT by Truth Exists (Faux birth announcements)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10251 | View Replies ]

To: rxsid
In the Ex Parte Application for Order...

Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Ex Parte Application for Order re Discovery Matter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633565/03118746941

...the part of the order beginning with "except" looks to me to be an invitation for Orly to immediately petition the Court for discovery regarding the original best evidence HI BC vital records and the two complimentary Kenya BCs from 1961 and 1964. Orly would clearly have grounds to establish the validity of those documents to “counter the grounds set forth (by Obama’s team) in said motion to dismiss”:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all discovery herein, and proceedings related thereto, be stayed pending the resolution by this Court fo Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, not set for hearing on October 5, 2009, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of this Court, that they need to counter the grounds set forth in said Motion to Dismiss.”

So an order that starts out sounding like a stay of all discovery actually is an order permitting any discovery that Orly can persuade the Court that she needs to defend against the Motion to Dismiss!

10,259 posted on 09/11/2009 10:12:32 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10251 | View Replies ]

To: Red Steel; null and void; LucyT; BP2; STARWISE; MHGinTN; pissant; hoosiermama; Amityschild; ...
Bump...Update on Barnett v Obama in CA (Judge Carter)

Docket entries (in part):

"Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Docket Text Ex Parte Application for Order re Discovery Matter
Terminated: 09/16/2009

"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.C IV.P.78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for thereasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19858504/03118784771

What does the entry "Terminated" (9/16) mean in relation to the Ex Parte Application (9/10)? Seems like the Application was Granted...so when then "Terminated?"

10,420 posted on 09/17/2009 2:27:19 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10251 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson