Judge Carter Issues Stay of Discovery in California Eligibility Case

Federal District Court, Central District of California ^ | Sept. 16, 2009 | Judge David O. Carter

[Sibre Fan]

Excerpts: "Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery (the "Motion"). The Court finds the Motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R. CIV. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion."
***
"The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery.

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.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action."

[Sibre Fan]

Obama’s enrollment form at the Catholic school he attended after Indonesian public school lists his nationality as Indonesian (found in AP articles)

Agreed. I commented on that document, and potential discovery on the basis of that document here.

... I for one would take the word of Obama’s new stepfather and say Obama had become an Indonesian citizen...

How do we know that document is based on Lolo Soetoro's word and not Stanly Ann's ... or the school registrar? Do you take their "word" that Obama was born in Hawaii as shown on that same photo?

Then we have the unsubstantiated but easily verified reports (with discovery anyway) that he did not have a US passport until he became a U.S. Senator.

The whole argument that he did not have a US passport was based on the now-disproven claim that the US had banned travel to Pakistan when Obama traveled there in 1981.

Unlike the school enrollment form above, which, imho, could legitimately lead to discovery at some point, the "reports" we have have no basis in fact or available evidence and, in fact, are contradicted by publicly available evidence in the form of US State Department official records.

So, (again, imho) the "reports" we have that Obama did not have a US passport in 1981 (or when he first went to Indonesia in late 60s) are not going to be sufficient to lead to discovery -- any more than the "reports" we have that Buzz Aldrin didn't really walk on the moon would lead to discovery in some case brought against the US government for defrauding the American people by spending millions of dollars on an alleged moon landing program.

[Neidermeyer]

Can a FOIA request be drawn up to simply ask the dates of passports issued (or the passport numbers if the date is either part of the number or can be derived from it) for Obama without actually requesting any “priveledged” information that would lead to a denial.

[OldDeckHand]

"With all due respect, rubbish. Civil suit plaintiffs need not prove their case upon initial filing. "

Who said that?

American common law demands that the burden of proving the plaintiff's allegation is shouldered by the plaintiff. In legalspeak, it's known as the onus probandi. The defendant has NO OBLIGATION to even provide evidence as he enjoys the benefit of assumption.

The plaintiff also shoulders the initial burden to demonstrate to the court that they have a valid claim, to include meeting the thresholds of jurisdiction, standing and justiciability For a case to proceed to the discovery phase, this initial burden must be met. The court won't say "Hey, you don't have a case, but here's an opportunity for you to dig around in the defendant's business until you can find one" Never happens. This is first semester, first year law school stuff - not difficult.

"Discovery is standard practice in federal and state civil court cases. "

Discovery is standard practice in cases that actually make it that far. To date, none of these cases have survived either a motion to dismiss, or sua sponte dismissal.

"No human can predict that with any accuracy for purposes of dismissing claims or any other purpose. "

I'm not so sure about that. To date, my batting average for these cases is, well flawless. Trust me, I have no crystal ball, and no precognitive ability. But, I do have the benefit of legal experience, that is shared by virtually every other competent attorney with equitable experience. This case won't survive defendant's motion to dismiss - no way.

[OldDeckHand]

"Can a FOIA request be drawn up to simply ask the dates of passports issued (or the passport numbers if the date is either part of the number or can be derived from it) for Obama without actually requesting any “priveledged” information that would lead to a denial."

Private records, like a citizen's personal passport files, are not accessible via a Freedom of Information Request, in any way. In fact, there's another piece of legislation called the Privacy of Act of 1974 that expressly forbids the dissemination of private records under FOIA, except for people to whom those records pertain. As an example, you have the right, under the Privacy Act, to file a FOIA request for your own personal records (with some very limited exceptions). But, no one can file a FOIA for your private records.

[Neidermeyer]

This came up in another post ,,, sounds solid to me ...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[Jude in WV]

you wrote: “Interesting argument to consider - if Hawaii had such a law applicable in this case. But it doesn’t.”

By this, are you saying that the COLB provided by Obama’s team is a legit proof of his birth on Hawaii soil?
Or, do you believe it may be a forgery?

[Sibre Fan]

you wrote: “Interesting argument to consider - if Hawaii had such a law applicable in this case. But it doesn’t.”

By this, are you saying that the COLB provided by Obama’s team is a legit proof of his birth on Hawaii soil? ...

No. Like the Indonesian school record, the COLB is a piece of evidence that, if authenticated (by production of an original, certified COLB) will be admissable. But the online jpeg file itself is not "proof" of anything.

Or, do you believe it may be a forgery?

No. Well... "may" be? Anything is possible. But I don't think that there is any admissible evidence that will support the contention that it's a forgery.