Posted on 09/17/2009 10:25:29 PM PDT by rxsid
Barnett v. Obama: Important Discovery Is Available Now According To Judge Carter’s Order of Sept. 17, 2009.
Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:
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.
Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:
...
While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:
In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.
Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.
That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.
They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…
The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.
Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.
(See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)
The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.
This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see no official explanation available to the public.
Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.
Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:
1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.
NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Got that? Make it broad, not specific.
- Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.
- Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.
Don’t limit the interrogatories to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.
The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:
Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?
That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.
2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.
Depending on the answers to those interrogatories, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.
After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.
District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.
In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved.
My point was, just because higher officials up the ladder fail to find the fraud doesn’t make the fraud legitimate especially when the fraud can then be dealt with at lower level point of fraud being carried out. The DOJ appears on the face of it to be arguing that fraud at the state election board level is somehow exempt from prosecution because the fraud was not seen at points beyond when the initial fraud was carried out. It’s the same flawed ‘no controlling legal authority’ bilge lawless liberals always want to be enforced and the obama defenders at FR are playing the gambit hot and heavy right now, with moderator protection.
here may be the video for 2004 election. I can’t get it to play.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote.1718/index.html
it seems the objection was raised after Ohio did their thing..not at the end.
I guess Cheney was suppose to ask at the end of it if there were any objections. So when it came time to do the vote again after the objections.. did he ask at the end?
So to see how it is suppose to go you would have to go back to Clinton vote when there were no objections.
If one member of each body of Congress objects, congressional rules require that lawmakers return to their chambers to vote on the merits.
A simple majority vote in each chamber would overturn the challenge -- something that should be easily achieved in the GOP-controlled Congress.
here is partial transcript with Gore..
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.01.html
After Arkansas he says
“GORE: Is there objection? Hearing none, the chair now hands to the gentleman from California and the other tellers the certificate of the electors for president... “
We need transcripts. I suck at trying to find the transcripts of this stuff. I would like to see how others have done it at the end...which is where people are claiming Cheney didn’t do it.
Maybe he did it after every state like Gore did here.
Here is a detailed account of the 2005 certification, but have not found a video yet.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/01/66194
It’s late here and I’m beat. Will try again tomorrow.
obumpa
skimming through 2008 vote..Cheney didnt ask for Objections like Gore was doing in that video clip. So apparently at no time did he ask for objections.
If someone wants to sit through that whole video you may see a clearer view of the man who later raised his hand to make sure the identification is correct.
Given that someone was definitely raising is hand, (it wasn’t a scratch or a clap )..there is cause to look into this further.
He raised his hand..he was not recognized... at no time did Cheney ask for objections...it doesn’t follow the Constitutional requirements.
Grounds for a lawsuit and discovery.
God help us..please have someone competent advising Taitz on this one.
Did Cheney do it on purpose..or did he just slip up due to old age or he didn’t know he was suppose to do it ...who knows....I am sure there is a script to follow...
...but he didn’t follow the Constitutional requirement.
*
Agreed! However, is it not time for other lawyers to step up to the plate? Why must Orly take on the entire load with nothing but snipping going on at her heels?
VP Cheney is no dummy, I don't care how old he is!
...but he didn’t follow the Constitutional requirement.
No, he didn't...WHY?
Have you seen this article? It may answer a few of your questions...or may cause more to be asked.
Also, do a search on Raila Odinga and his tactics.
Apparently, several lawyers have tried to help Taitz and it has been a disaster. Sometimes I wonder if she is a plant. Hopefully someone will get this that other attorney on the case.
How is it that Donofrio, a lawyer, did not know that interrogatories can’t be sent to non parties???????????
Those people who still refuse to accept that he is very likely wrong about Obama’s british citizenship should keep that fact in mind.
Connection with the omitted certification of eligibility on the DNC statement of candidates to the State Attorney Generals?
I am not legally trained, but this thing stinks all over.
Makes me wonder if some of the wild conspiracy theories have validity. (the ones about being blackmailed into submission with in place nukes- I know insanity)
The pieces simply do not fit. Do Not Fit.
No Background
No Records
No History
No Accountability
How can this BE?
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.