Posted on 07/14/2009 6:16:26 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
Urban Dictionary defines a 'birther' as "A person who believes that Barack Obama has controversy and/or fraud surrounding his birth…"
At last count, at least 17 lawsuits had been filed in 17 different states questioning Barack Obama's status as an American citizen and his right to prop his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office.
One of those lawsuits will now get the chance to see the light of day.
Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Alan Keyes in Keyes vs. Obama, announced late this evening that a judge has ruled in favor of Mr Keyes' request for a trial to discover whether or not Obama is an American citizen and, as such, entitled to be President of the United States of America.
Two weeks ago, World Net Daily posted a story outlining the difficulties Taitz encountered in attempting to serve the President with a subpoena. Taitz has filed multiple legal actions around the country alleging Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office.
Monday's hearing was on a request by Taitz for a default judgment, since she notified the president of the action weeks ago, and his lawyers failed to respond.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in favor of Taitz and granted the "motion for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal.". A trial date will be set and Taitz "will immediately request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office."
Bottom line? Whether one is a 'birther' or a 'believer,' this case will definitely be worth watching!
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
The PACER service provides on-line access to U.S. Appellate, District, and Bankruptcy court records and documents nationwide. The PACER Service Center is the Federal Judiciary’s centralized registration, billing, and technical support center for PACER.
Yes, I am beginning to agree. And, his resume sounds like a definite bonus.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter:
—
He was a Marine! Who received the Bronze Star and Purple Heart.
—
From Wiki:
“Carter is a “Double Bruin,” having received both his bachelor’s degree (B.A. 1967) and his law degree (J.D. 1972) from the University of California, Los Angeles. Carter graduated cum laude and was a candidate for the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship in 1967.
After graduating from college, Carter enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was promptly dispatched into service in Vietnam during the Vietnam War where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sahn in 1968. Carter was released as a First Lieutenant following his service in Vietnam. His military awards and decorations include a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.”
pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
court documents, ask your dad for help
Right you are! Calls for a martini!
“I think we will have a real chance of having this examined in an honest fashion.
Should we break out the popcorn?”
That may be where Starwise and penelopsire got their information last night...IIRC star said nothing was up when checked and Penelope posted the paper work that yesterday’s hearing was based on, but nothing new was posted at that time.
He read till almost dawn and won’t be up till this afternoon.
Yes indeed!
You wrote- “Yes, I am beginning to agree. And, his resume sounds like a definite bonus.”
When is the next hearing (or whatever the next court action) ?
This is what was posted by Penelopesire last night, my understanding is that it is related to yesterday’s case but not a RESULT of yesterdays case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALAN KEYES, Ph.D., WILLEY S.
DRAKE, AND MARKHAM ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (Anx)
DATE: July 13, 2009
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
CTRM: 9D
Hon. David O. Carter
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
COMES NOW the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, by and through its undersigned counsel, and respectfully files this Statement of Interest:
I. Plaintiffs Are Required To Comply With The Service Provisions Contained In Rule 4(i) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
While the Complaint is not a model of clear pleading, when distilled to its essence, it appears that this case seeks a judgment declaring whether Barack H. Obama is eligible to be President of the United States. See, e.g., ¶¶ 36 and 37 of the Complaint. As such, it is indisputable that this case constitutes an action against an “Officer of the United States.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i). It follows ineluctably, therefore, that service must be effected pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. The Requirements For Service Of Process Provided In Rule 4(i) Have Not been Met
Plaintiffs cannot allege that they have complied with the service requirements of Rule 4(i). As Plaintiffs acknowledge, Rule 4(i) requires, among other things, that “a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g).” See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, 2, quoting Rule 4(i)(3)(emphasis added). In other words, to effect proper service a party must serve both the officer or employee and the United States. In order to properly serve the United States, however, a party must serve the United States Attorney for the District in which the suit is pending. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). Among other defects, Plaintiffs have never served the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California as required by Rule 4(i). On this ground alone the Court should find that the service of process requirements under the Federal Rules have not been met.
III. Even Assuming, Arguendo, That Plaintiffs Were Only Required To Comply With The Service Requirements Of Rule 4(e), They Have Not Done So
Throughout their moving papers, Plaintiffs assert that, notwithstanding the fact that they are contesting the eligibility of President Obama under Article II, they are not suing President Obama in his official capacity, but, rather, merely as an individual. From this, Plaintiffs further assert that they are, therefore, required only to comply with the service requirements contained in Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs finally assert in this regard that they have complied specifically with Rule 4(e)(2)(C). In support of their assertion that they have complied with Rule 4(e)(2)(C), Plaintiffs proffer the “General Affidavit” of Mary Ann McKiernan. In this document, which Plaintiffs attach to their Motion, Ms. McKierman states that on February 10, 2009, sheattempted to serve “a Pleading” (not further identified) to President Obama at the White House. She further states that she gave the envelope with “the Pleading” to a Secret Service Agent ata gate just outside the White House. She thereafter avers that the Secret Service Agents told her that she could not serve the papers there. She states that she then called the White House, and was informed by White House legal counsel that she needed to serve the papers “to the Department of Justice.” Thereafter, she alleges that she went to the Department of Justice, and ultimately servedthe papers upon a “male Mail Clerk.” The facts set forth in Ms. McKiernan’s “General Affidavit” constitute the sole basis for Plaintiffs’ contention that they have properly served President Obama, in his private capacity, with the
Summons and Complaint herein under Rule 4(e)(2)(C). Even assuming, arguendo, that only Rule 4(e) applied here, Plaintiffs have not shown, nor can they show, that a mail clerk at the Department of Justice to whom Ms. Mckiernan gave some unspecified “Pleading” was authorized, by appointment or by law, to receive service of process on behalf of Barack H. Obama in lawsuits where he was sued in his private, individual capacity. Indeed, it strains credulity past the breaking point to conclude that an otherwise unidentified mail clerk in the Department of Justice would have been authorized through appointment by Defendant Obama, or by law, to receive service of process on Defendant Obama’s behalf in cases where he was sued only in his private, individual capacity.
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that, even assuming for purposes of argument that only Rule 4(e) applied to this case, the provisions of that Rule have not been met.
IV. Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Without Merit And Should Be Denied Forthwith
As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is without merit factually, legally or logically, and it should be denied forthwith. Morever, the questions presented by the Motion are so frivolous and insubstantial that they do not merit an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
V. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is submitted that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration Or In The Alternative To Certify Question For Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 is completely without merit, and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: July 7, 2009 THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
United States Attorney
LEON WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
/S/
_______________________________
ROGER E. WEST
Assistant United States Attorneys
First Assistant Chief, Civil Division
/S/
_______________________________
DAVID A. DeJUTE
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for the United States
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 18 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 5 of 5
20 posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:08:49 AM by penelopesire
Here’s another article on it!
There was no trial set for Keyes v Obama. The judge only permitted Orly to serve the US Attorney. This case was about procedure in serving the President. Not about merits of the case itself.
Things may or may not be posted on PACER. I rather count on the word from folks I know and know they are telling me the truth. I received information yesterday from Major Cook whom I know and also know I can count on his information to be true. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2289990/posts?page=307#307
Visit the other threads where information was posted yesterday. When I hear more I will post.
We must remember there will be those who will want to keep information from coming forward. I am surprised that finally some AP articles are actually showing up. Must be they know there is a case at a point of really coming to light! :)
Major Cook's case this coming Thursday will be another case to watch. Major Cook is an honorable member of the Army and plans to deploy to Afganistan to continue serving our country. If you read his case you will know that Major Cook is only requesting answers to questions that EVERY American citizen should be demanding answers to!
THIS IS THE first article posted last night
___________________________________________________________
(OBAMA) BORN IN THE USA? Eligibility Arguments To Get Court Hearing (US District Court, CD Cal)
World Net Daily ^ | July 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 10:27:11 PM by Altera
BORN IN THE USA? - Eligibility arguments to get court hearing’ For 1st time, we have a judge who’s listening’
In what ultimately could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California has planned a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.
According to attorney Orly Taitz...Obama is a “usurper” because he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can be president, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a hearing today that her case will move forward...
Taitz told WND if her motion for default is granted she immediately would request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office....
The case...names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
She told WND that at today’s hearing, the judge issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute. He said there would be no dismissals based on “procedural issues.”
The judge said as a former Marine....
...no attorneys appeared on Obama’s behalf...the U.S. Attorney’s office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.
The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.
How about just doing his JOB?
Yes, WorldNetDaily is producing some terrific reports.
________________________
You wrote- “THIS IS THE first article posted last night
___________________________________________________________
(OBAMA) BORN IN THE USA? Eligibility Arguments To Get Court Hearing (US District Court, CD Cal)
World Net Daily ^ | July 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 10:27:11 PM by Altera
BORN IN THE USA? - Eligibility arguments to get court hearing’ For 1st time, we have a judge who’s listening’
In what ultimately could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California has planned a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.
According to attorney Orly Taitz...Obama is a “usurper” because he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can be president, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a hearing today that her case will move forward...
Taitz told WND if her motion for default is granted she immediately would request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office....
The case...names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
She told WND that at today’s hearing, the judge issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute. He said there would be no dismissals based on “procedural issues.”
The judge said as a former Marine....
...no attorneys appeared on Obama’s behalf...the U.S. Attorney’s office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.
The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.”
I just waited to hear from Major Cook, myself. He just confirmed things for me and many other FReepers who know him personally.
He is in our prayers for safety and for the truth to come to light as a result of his hearing on Thursday. God Bless Major Cook!
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.