Posted on 10/08/2009 2:40:40 PM PDT by Elderberry
Orly's request of Relief from Stay of Discovery was denied
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
You have my sympathy. That's a hard route.
The judge has told the people involved that the can't go out to take sworn statements, nor can they get court orders (subpoenas) to obtain documents, (The long form birth certificate for example). He ordered this back after the original hearing, when the defense filed a motion to dismiss the case (Throw it out, basically on grounds that the court had no power (jurisdiction) over the issue, and that those filing the case (plaintiffs) had no standing to file such a case, on two basis, one they weren't personally "injured" or "harmed" by the actions of the defendants, and whatever "harm" is alleged was general, applying to a large fraction of the citizenry.
He, the Judge, has not yet ruled on that motion, and has refused a request that the parties be allowed to begin obtaining testimony and documents.
IOW, a small victory for the defense attorneys, whose mission seems to be to keep those documents from seeing the light of day, or at least delay their revelation as long as possible.
Dismissal on the grounds put forward in the Motion to Dismiss would not be deciding anything on any merits. A dismissal means they don't get to the merits/evidence/truth of anything. Other than reaffirming that people have no judicial recourse to have the Constitution enforced.
"Judicial recourse" is the next to the last box. I'd just as soon the final box not be used. Even a"judicial solution is likely to be messy enough.
Seriously, I think that's a fundamental misconception a lot of people have about the law, this idea that if you don't make it to trial, your case wasn't heard on its merits. Courts aren't there to validate an individual’s sense of righteousness or entitlement. They are set up to process conflicts posed in a specific way so that they can be heard in a manner fair to all parties.
Motions to Dismiss are part of that process; the ability to make it past a Motion to Dismiss is absolutely part of a case's merits. If a case can't make it past a Motion to Dismiss, that means there is something fundamentally flawed about the overall legal argument being made. It happens all the time, and it's not a technicality.
I think Judge Carter has bent over backward to let the plaintiffs in this case feel they are being heard. But he has asked some pointed questions that will get a dismissal if he ultimately feels the answers received do not satisfy basic legal obligations. If that happens, that will be fair, and it will have been decided on the merits of the case Orly and Kreep presented.
I have gone on record as saying I think Judge Carter is fair, and I will accept his having acted on the merits of this case whichever way he decides on the Motion to Dismiss. To say otherwise means you don't accept the rule of law if it doesn't give you what you want. I can't think of many attitudes more disrespectful to the Constitution.
I disagree with some of the posters here.
Filing a motion to proceed with discovery provides Orly with a fallback position.
Assuming the discovery is allowed to proceed, it is guaranteed that the Obama team will do all that it can to slow and obfuscate the process. When the January deadline approaches, and Orly had not enough time to gather information, Orly will be able to point to the fact that she DID recognize the need for more time at an early date...
This will make it more likely that Judge Carter will grant an extension for discovery. If Orly HADN’T filed such a motion, Judge Carter would (rightly) deny a time extension.
Well you see that there are so many that spout that anything that Orly does is wrong or even stupid, to use there words. I, on the other hand, try to support any effort to prove Obama’s constitutional qualifications, or lack thereof.
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.