Posted on 09/14/2009 9:09:33 PM PDT by FARS
Sorry, that has not been verified yet.
Nakazato had shot down Orly’s BC filing and rejected it. She asked for him to be recused. Judge Carter refused (the two men get along and work very well and Carter is not going to open the door for someone with whom he has no long sganding work realtionship to step in and pehaps be a thorn in his side.
Orly filed a doc in the official court file 9/13 :
to Dejute & West USA & Kreep
Dear Mr. DeJute:
I am writing this letter in an effort to comply with both the letter and the spirit of Judge Carter’s Orders of September 8, 2009, but also of Rules 26, 29, and
30-34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Civil Action 2009cv00082-DOC.
There are two preliminary matters, both relating to Mr. Gary Kreep. First,regarding our scheduled telephone conference tomorrow, I will be available at 1:00 Pacific Daylight Time (4:00 Eastern Daylight Time) to participate by telephone, but my law clerks Messrs. Lincoln and Freiman, along with one of our key fact witnesses, Mr. Lucas D. Smith, will be at your office in person, which you have indicated is acceptable to you.
Also, regarding Mr. Kreep, I am requesting that his agreement and stipulation that he will resign as counsel for co-Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake and Markham
Robinson or else be subject (within ten days) to my motion to disqualify him as cocounsel by reason of conflict of interests which have arisen in prior litigation. FDIC v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1311 (5th Cir. 1995).
A number of my clients believe, contend and intend to show by clear and convincing evidence (a) that Gary Kreep’s prior representation of him was so substantially related to the current litigation so as to warrant the disqualification of counsel and (b) that the conflicts of interest which exist in this case between Gary
Kreep and my clients go the very heart of this litigation in such a manner that it will unduly complicated litigation and ultimately and unjustifiably confuse the jury at
final trial. In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 614 (5th Cir. 1992).
Let me make it clear that the disqualification of Mr. Kreep will not affect my or my clients willingness to participate in discovery. I would suggest that 90% of
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 63-2 Filed 09/13/2009 Page 1 of 3
Letter Regarding Rule 26(f) Conference and Other Preliminaries 2
my clients are available on 7 business day’s notice for deposition at my office or within 200 miles of their actual residence. I would also suggest that Plaintiff’s
depositions of the named Defendants should take priority over all other discovery, but that to the extent that discovery will be conducted in Washington, D.C., as
outlined below, I would prefer to concentrate the depositions of all Eastern Seaboard Plaintiffs as “time fillers” between the depositions of named Defendants to the degree that the Defendants wish to take their deposition.
And that leads to the key point of this letter, I take Judge Carter’s suggestion that discovery should begin prior to the Scheduling Conference quite seriously, and
I suggest that the Defendants should do so as well. In particular, I accept that even though (without stipulation), because of the 30 day requirement of Rules 30 and 34 regarding the production of documents at depositions, none of our (Plaintiffs’) proposed discovery can actually take place before the October 5, 2009, hearing before Judge Carter. However, in the spirit of Judge Carter’s admonition (if it is not a mandatory injunction!) that we attempt to begin discovery expeditiously, prior to October 5, 2009, I see no reason to engage in any sort of unreasonable delay in scheduling the discovery necessary and formal scheduling conference.
I should advise that I fully intend to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before Monday, October 5, 2009, which will address many if not all of the
jurisdictional and pleading sufficiency issues raised in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed last Friday (September 11, 2009).
Rules 30(b)(2) and 34(b)(2) both require 30 days notice. 30 days from the day of this Rule 26(f) Conference is Wednesday, October 14, 2009. I am going to
propose to you that I will make myself available (without any reservations, even to include weekends) in a four week block for depositions duces tecum for each of the named Defendants, plus two non-party witnesses (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Commissioner of Social Security), between Monday October 19, 2009 and Friday November 13, 2009. Furthermore, I will make myself available to take these depositions in Washington, D.C., as well as (obviously) at my office in Rancho Santa Margarita, or at your (Mr. DeJute’s) the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in Los Angeles. In short, we are willing to schedule these depositions at the Defendants’ request and convenience within a four week time span.
What I ask and expect of you as opposing counsel is merely to provide me with the dates, within this very broad range of dates, when each of your clients will be available for deposition and when you might be available for the non-party
witness depositions. I do not see how such a broad range of time could not be sufficient for your clients, acknowledging the full weight and breadth of their de
facto positions and de facto official duties, to carve out six hours each for depositions within this one month time-frame. If this one-month wide window is not sufficient, I do not see how you will justify this to the Court.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 63-2 Filed 09/13/2009 Page 2 of 3
Letter Regarding Rule 26(f) Conference and Other Preliminaries 3
It is my purpose and intent to use written discovery following depositions only to the extent necessary to supplement the material produced in the depositions,
so that within 30 days after the conclusion of the last deposition, I will be ready to make serious plans for trial.
I will file a copy of this letter with the Court under a Notice of Transmission at the same time that I am sending it to you electronically.
Yours very truly,
.....................
And it comes at a time when Obama’s popularity with the nation is at its lowest ebb ever!
Today’s hearing was in GA, in Judge Land’s court. The case where Judge Carter is presiding is in California, the Keyes case.
No, it’s not necessarily a demand. Judges often encourage attorneys to cooperate in various ways to ensure a smooth trial process. Until Judge Carter hears arguments from the defense on the discovery motion, he’s unlikely to order anything.
At this point, he’s notifying the attorneys that he doesn’t want to see any delays relating to discovery. He’s essentially telling them to be prepared to begin the discovery process if the case heads to trial. The judge didn’t order the defense to produce any documentation or sit for depositions in Orly’s office as she claims on this video.
Good one! I do love a play on words.
I am trying to find some more info besides the video, I did find the court docket but i am no lawyer and can not discern exactly what it all means. If you have any more info or sources let me know
There is no burden of proof on Obama at this point. He doesn’t have to produce any documentation until the discovery process actually begins.
If you knew the answer, why did you ask? Discovery is voluntary, but when a Judge “suggests” that you expedite discovery, you don’t want to have to go before him on a motion to compel discovery because you ignored his “suggestion.” Believe me, he means DO IT. Discovery is suppose to be a cooperation between attorneys no hearing is necessary. If one side or the other refuses to cooperate there is a hearing on compelling them, or excusing them, or sanctioning them.
My guess is this went beyond grassroots after Judge Carter's last ruling. I hope she has a lot of help. Fingers crossed and lots of prayers.
Thanks. So this info on video was from when?
Keep the good news coming!
I suspect martial will be announced by Obama inside of thirty days, Does anyone firmly believe that he will just let these court cases prove with evidence that he is an illegal POTUS?
That he will confess and resign? Can he in the multiple and increasingly damming indictments showing that he guilty that he will accept defeat?
Obama has real power at his control but he is not a person to wield it wisely nor patriotism, and thats his Achilles heel, his complete lack of patriotism. let us not forget the ones that propelled him to power and what their goals are, if there was to be any pure all out attempt on taking back America we desperately need to expose and expunge the puppetmasters themselves as its obvious Obama has minuscule creative thoughts on his own, he has ambitions yes that he has lived by his whole life but its the people behind him we need to target.
We need to offer a way out because trapping him in a position of fear will only make him perform grossly dangerous and illogical decisions, more so than he has been doing. And right now we are treading close to a precipice and the Obama convoy is about to lose its brakes and its heading downhill towards us.
my problem us she is trying once again to get Kreep off after the judge said they had to work together,
Does this not add meat to the bones?
I just remembered: Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University Law School, isn’t she the ONLY law professor in the nation who said she wanted BO to show his BC and didn’t understand why he wouldn’t?
Saturday.
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.