Posted on 09/19/2009 11:52:44 AM PDT by Danae
[UPDATED: 9:45 AM. Upates in strikeout and red ink.]
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:
Leo,
What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?
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.
As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.
With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:
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 deposed as to 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 deposition 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.
Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.
2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.
Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, 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.
Here is the Youtube video Fron Nancy Pelosi's site. Download it and archive it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4&feature=related
Please pull this thread! There is another one already posted.
Thanks!!
PS I searched for it too! Grrrrrrrrrr
can we get the legal eagles to summarize this for us lay folk...
Interesting Potential
The DOJ quoted part of the US Code in it’s argument that CONGRESS had settled the issue, that it was up to congress to take it up or not. Not a Civil court’s place to do so. That is the basis for their Motion to Dismiss.
“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 problem is, that Cheny did NOT follow the statute and ask if there were any objections. Because he didn’t do that 1) it make the argument of the DOJ irrelevant. Because the statute wasn’t followed, it opens the door for a civil case to depose all of the congressmen/women (house and senate) if they had an objection, if it was in writing and signed by a member of the senate. It opens the door to civil proceedings.
Thats the crux of it. The DOJ says that because of that statute, the issue belongs to congress, but the statute wasn’t followed so their argument is moot and opens the door to civil proceedings.
Yes it is indeed.It totally renders the argument that this issue belongs to congress false.
HAHA! It’s been sitting there the whole time almost as if Cheney et al knew Obama was ineligible and they left the barn door open for Civil Proceedings through this very mechanism!
...and the PLOT THICKENS...
ping
Wouldn't do any good at this stage. Taitz has until Monday to get her response to the defense motion to dismiss in to Judge Carter. Nothing could be done over the weekend, even if this bizarre line of reasoning was followed.
i dont get it. what does this mean?
“I sure hope the right eyes see this!”
Could it be forwarded to “the right eyes”?
When Judge Carter set October 5th as the date to rule on the motion to dismiss he gave Taitz and Kreep 14 days to file their written responses as to why the defense's motion should not be granted. That date is Monday, the 21st. Gary Kreep has filed his response but Taitz has not. Once the plaintiff's responses are submitted, the defense has until September 28 to respond to those responses. The following week will be the hearing. If Taitz does not file a response by Monday then she loses her chance to explain why the motion to dismiss should not be granted.
Second, the judge ruled last week that no discovery is allowed except that which may be required to respond to the motion to dismiss. This is Saturday afternoon. Even if Taitz wanted to follow this wild process of Donofrio's she doesn't have time. And she can't do it except in connection with the response due on Monday so she couldn't start doing it afterwards.
what is donfrio doing?
Other than writing the blog that started this thread? Nothing I know of.
I am not sure why you see it as bizarre. When a function of government is not followed, it opens a door for the people to seek that it be remedied. It opens a door to get more information, and that is an opportunity that it would be foolish to waste.
It is an option no longer open. The judges order clearly states that only discovery necessary to reply to the defense motion to dismiss is allowed. Orly has until tomorrow morning to submit her reply. Nothing can be done between now and then.
This makes sense to me
Unless the court is closed for weather related problems.
Probably not since filings are made electronically. But still, I suppose you can hope for a sudden late summer ice storm to hit southern California.
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.