Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney Taitz battles Attorneys General - Discovery to Begin!
The Post & Mail ^ | September 12, 2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 09/13/2009 2:27:53 PM PDT by vrwc1

Attorney Taitz battles Attorney Generals — Discovery to Begin!

IN TWO SEPARATE CASES, AGs WORK TO FORESTALL

by John Charlton

(Sept. 12, 2009: 9:45 PM Eastern DLST) — Just minutes ago Niel Turner issued a public announcement, based on his personal communications with Attorney Orly Taitz, who is presently in Washington, D.C.; regarding Taitz’s two cases, Captain Pamela Barnett vs. Obama, and Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., vs. McDonald.

In the more recent case, Rhodes vs. McDonald, in GA Federal Court, which regards Capt. Rhodes request for an emergency stay of her deployment to Afghanistan, on the grounds that Barack Hussein Obama has not demonstrated his lawful holding of the office of U.S. President, Attorney Taitz disputed the claim of the government attorneys, that Capt. Rhodes “failed to show in Court”, according to Turner.

Turner declared: “The Government attorneys lied to Judge Land in court (in Columbus, GA) on Friday when they told the judge that the Flight Surgeon, Capt. Rhodes (who is the plaintiff refusing to obey orders for deployment until they can be proved to be ‘lawful orders’) , just failed to show in Court, when they knew that she was ordered to remain on base back in Kansas.”

During the hearing on Friday, in this case, Attorney Taitz rebutted this false claim, by producing “a notarized statement from the plaintiff (that had been scanned and then emailed to her), stating the facts of the matter.” It was “perjury, pure and simple,” says Turner; ” And, needless to say, the Judge was ‘PISSED’ (Orly’s words – in English, and in Russian, I believe).”

Attorney Taitz will be back in Court, on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, in the Columbus Federal Court House, at noon, on Monday.

In the meantime, Dr. Orly Taitz will return to California, to begin discovery in the case, Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.

The Post & Email had previously reported widespread speculation that discovery would commence in the principal action. At that time Mr. Turner could not verify exactly for The Post & Email the status of the matter. Now Turner, after speaking with Taitz has clarified, declaring that discovery will begin.

Orly is proceeding with ‘DISCOVERY’ based on:

a. Judge Carter’s words in Court to proceed in a timely and expeditious manner;

b. the Government’s (Cardona) Application for Stay: “This court should stay … with the exception of any discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstratethat they need in order to counter said motion (to dismiss).” It is arguable that the original hospital birth certificate is absolutely essential to demonstrate that dismissal is not appropriate in this case;

c. and the actual COURT ORDER by Judge David O. Carter setting a Scheduling Conference for October 5, 2009 (CASE NO. SA CV09-0082-DOC (ANx) in the Case of BARNETT et al v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA et al., especially lines 3 – 6 (page 2): the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery.

“Let the subpoenas and the servings begin,” concludes Turner.



TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: akaobama; birthcertificate; birthcertifigate; birthers; certifigate; discovery; eligibility; orlytaitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: STARWISE; hoosiermama

ping


41 posted on 09/13/2009 9:35:09 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Gitmo!!!


42 posted on 09/13/2009 9:36:08 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: danamco
I'm not aware that the B.C. you mentioned has anything to do with this case. However, going by the following quote from the article it sounds like discovery means a lot more than just verification of one document: “Let the subpoenas and the servings begin,” concludes Turner.
43 posted on 09/13/2009 9:38:34 PM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Why should we expect this one to escape that same fate?

Because of previous spineless and cowardly judges, that's why!!!

44 posted on 09/13/2009 9:40:48 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Quote from the article:
the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference

Sounds like Judge Carter ordered it.

45 posted on 09/13/2009 9:41:34 PM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

He will never miss a fart to paint Orly as incompetent, but he is probably a very competent armchair keyboard “attorney,” something like John Edwards. Just wait for his firing squat!!!


46 posted on 09/13/2009 9:50:27 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Subponeaing records does not put Obama in the role of self-incrimination, as he will not be supplying the document, if it exists. The State of Hawaii will, and he will not be involved. If this is true, then any other documents from colleges, schools, hospitals, selective service, immigration, fulbright foundation, passports, all fall under the purvue of discovery, and none of them directly involve Obama...


47 posted on 09/13/2009 10:18:06 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

Why are you certain? did you go to college at the same time as he? Did you know him? What makes you so certain?


48 posted on 09/13/2009 10:19:49 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

That’s kinda what I thought. The whole idea of subpoenas is set up to allow evidence to be gathered regardless of fifth amendment constraints.

As for NS: I’ve been watching him for quite awhile and I think I’ve got him pretty well figured out. There’s lots of guys like him on the net. Hell, some people even think I’m one of them. I guess it all depends on your point of view.


49 posted on 09/13/2009 10:45:36 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

i found a case called Burton v. United States. (an ineligible Federal officeholder. The SCOTUS heard the case.)
i am new at this whole NBC matter. Is someone collecting information?


50 posted on 09/13/2009 11:08:42 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
I hope this is true and it causes the judge to see that the government is hiding something

Judge don't like being lied to by attorneys. (Honest judges that is) If proven, someone could go to jail, or lose their law license.

51 posted on 09/14/2009 12:14:48 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Orly is not going to make much progress on discovery until Judge Carter orders it

He's already moved the discovery process to the magistrate judge. If either side wants something, now or later, they have to go to him to get a subpoena for it. Whatever limits he put on discovery for now, will be implemented by the magistrate judge.

52 posted on 09/14/2009 12:19:08 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That and the fact that at the time Kenya was a colony and not a protectorate.

Not the coastal strip, which included Mombasa. They were administered together, but were tehnically separate until independence. The strip, also known as the Witu protectorate, nominally belonged to the Sultan of Zanzibar.

The Witu protectorate had been part of German East Africa (Tanganyika) but was annexed in 1890. It is the hinterland area inland from the coast. The coast of Kenya with Mombasa etc... was nominally a possession of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and so was officially a British Protectorate. However Kenya Colony and Protectorate were administered as a single unit with a single flag-badge. This sort of arrangement was quite common in British African territories, although it was more usual for the Colony to be on the coast and the Protectorate inland.

source

53 posted on 09/14/2009 12:30:22 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
" and the actual COURT ORDER by Judge David O. Carter setting a Scheduling Conference for October 5, 2009 (CASE NO. SA CV09-0082-DOC (ANx) in the Case of BARNETT et al v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA et al., especially lines 3 – 6 (page 2): … the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. "

Or the judge is encouraging them to get all their ducks in order for what is about to come down the pike.
54 posted on 09/14/2009 2:20:32 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: txhurl
" You can see from footage he has a pigeon-toe tendency and a wide splay at the toes. "


55 posted on 09/14/2009 2:24:13 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
" Is someone collecting information? " ....

Just the ordinary citizens doing the job that the MSM refuses to do, report the truth.
56 posted on 09/14/2009 2:35:26 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
" Judge don't like being lied to by attorneys. (Honest judges that is) If proven, someone could go to jail, or lose their law license. "

Surely they got orders from the top.

How the boss from the AG office ?
57 posted on 09/14/2009 2:38:00 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
You (as far as I can discern) seem to be more interested in seeing all the “t’s” dotted and the “I’s” crossed.

I want it followed according to the law. If you choose to dismiss that as dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" then so be it.

While it is important that all the proper steps be taken I think it is far more important that we get to the bottom of the issue.

If the plaintiff doesn't meet the legal definition of standing the I think it's far more important that the case be dismissed than for the law to be twisted or ignored to get at one man, regardless of who he is.

BTW, do you just sit around all day and night pecking at the keyboard? I have an excuse since I’m retired and mildly disabled... I don’t have much of anything else to do.

Hobby. I was watching the football game and hanging out here.

58 posted on 09/14/2009 4:01:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Because of previous spineless and cowardly judges, that's why!!!

And if Judge Carter dismisses this case in October, will he suddenly change from stand-up former Marine to "spineless and cowardly" in the eyes of y'all?

59 posted on 09/14/2009 4:02:48 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Or the judge is encouraging them to get all their ducks in order for what is about to come down the pike.

They should be doing that without the judges order. Taitz should have her evidence lined up, her subpoenas ready, her list of depositions drawn up, and be ready to hit the ground. The defense is going to want to see all of it.

But most of all she should be working on her response to the motion to dismiss. Especially the proofreading part.

60 posted on 09/14/2009 4:05:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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