See # 94.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2336970/posts?page=94#94
Posted on 09/10/2009 9:42:35 PM PDT by moonpie57
I just talked to Orly:
She has 2 good news items that she is very busy with right now:
1. Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery - immediately’.
2. Judge Land will allow her to present before the court in GA. She is leaving now to fly to GA to appear before Judge Land at the Federal Building in Columbus, GA at 2:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, 9/11/09).
She would like as many military supporters to be there as possible. I called Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com), and he will see what he can do. If you have any contacts there, please advise them.
(Excerpt) Read more at resistnet.com ...
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON W. WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609) Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division DAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527) Assistant United States Attorney Room 7516, Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 Email: roger.west4@usdoj.gov david.dejute@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SOUTHERN DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) BARACK H. OBAMA, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ________________________________) No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
EX PARTE APPLICATION Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby apply to this Court, on an ex parte basis, for an Order staying all discovery in this matter pending the Court’s ruling upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, currently set for hearing on October 5, 2009, with the exception of discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter said Motion. This Ex Parte application will be based upon these moving papers, the Memorandum of Points and authorities filed herewith, and upon such other and further arguments, documents and grounds as may be advanced to the Court in the future. All requirements of
the Local Rules for ex parte applications have been met, including the notice requirements of Local Rule 7-19 as more particularly contained within the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: September 10, 2009 GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Roger E. West ROGER E. WEST Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division /s/ David A. DeJute DAVID A. DeJUTE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
27 28
1
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 3 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs’ filed their Complaint in this matter challenging the fitness for office of President Obama. Over
seven months later, on August 25, 2009, Plaintiffs finally effected service of process. Soon thereafter, on September 4, 2009,
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss with a hearing set for October 5, 2009. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants maintain that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. As more fully
explained in that Motion, and among other reasons, the operative complaint fails to confer subject matter jurisdiction for several reasons: (1) The Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show the required injury-in-fact or the required redressability to confer jurisdiction; (2) The case presents non-justiciable political questions which are committed, by the very text of the Constitution, to a different branch of Government; (3) Plaintiffs are not authorized to pursue a Quo Warranto action against the President of the United States; (4) Neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 confers jurisdiction; and, (5) Plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act claims as a matter of law do confer jurisdiction. Any one of these grounds is sufficient to stay discovery pending a resolution of the Motion. On September 8, 2009, the Court convened a hearing upon issues which are unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss. At that hearing, the
Court granted Defendants leave to file this Ex Parte application. /// 2
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 4 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
II. ARGUMENT DISCOVERY SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS CONFER SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A District Court enjoys broad discretion in controlling discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
1988); Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426, 1436 (9th Cir. 1996) (and cases cited therein). Where, as here, there is pending a motion attacking the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, a threshold issue in the absence of which the court cannot proceed to hear other issues, “it is a recognized and appropriate procedure for a court to limit discovery proceedings at the outset to a determination of jurisdictional matters.” Blackburn v. United States, supra, 100
F.3d at 1436 (quoting United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 47 U.S. 72, 79-80, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 227273, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988). In Blackburn, the Ninth Circuit upheld
the decision of this Court per Judge Stotler, which limited discovery solely to the threshold jurisdictional issues for a time period of 120 days. See Id.
Cases are legion which recognize that, once a dispositive motion has been filed, discovery should be limited to only those issues raised in that dispositive motion. See, e.g. Jarvis v.
Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Sprague v. Brook, 149 F.R.D. 575, 577 (and cases cited therein) (N.D. Ill. 1993); Chavous v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility, etc., et al., 201 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001); Cromer v. Braman, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 3346675 (W.D. Mich. 2007)(“A trial court has broad discretion and 3
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 5 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
inherent power to stay discovery until the preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined”) (citation omitted) and also (“A stay of discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion ‘is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources’”) (citations omitted). Currently pending before this Court for hearing on October 5, 2009, is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, a dispositive motion setting forth, among other things, the reasons why Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint cannot, as a matter of law, confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. As the cases cited above make
clear, because subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue challenging the very power of this Court to proceed, discovery should be stayed until such time as this Court determines whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. 100 F.3d at 1436 and cases cited therein. See, e.g., Blackburn,
A stay would also not See, e.g.,
waste the resources of this Court or of the parties. Cromer, 2007 WL 3346675 and cases cited therein.
On September 10, 2009, counsel for Defendants notified each of Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-19 of the substance of this ex parte application. Plaintiffs’ counsel Dr. Orly Taitz
stated that she opposed this application as did Plaintiffs’ counsel Gary Kreep. It should be noted, however, that no apparent
prejudice will result from granting this ex parte application for a stay of discovery until such time as the Court determines whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. A seven month time period of
the Plaintiffs’ own making lapsed between the filing of the Complaint and the date when service of process was effected. 4 Less
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 6 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
than two weeks then expired before Defendants’ filed their dispositive Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2009. Granting this
ex parte application until Defendants’ Motion can be heard on October 5, 2009, will therefore stay discovery for approximately one month. This stay is only one quarter of the 120 days approved The only
by the Ninth Circuit for the discovery stay in Blackburn.
parties prejudiced would be the Defendants if this Court were to deny this ex parte application, as discovery would be allowed to proceed on matters extraneous to subject matter jurisdiction. It is respectfully submitted that this Court should enter an Order herein staying all pending and future discovery, motion, and other matters related thereto, pending resolution of the this dispositive motion, with the exception of any discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter said Motion.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: September 10, 2009 GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Roger E. West ROGER E. WEST Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division /s/ David A. DeJute DAVID A. DeJUTE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
26 27 28 5
Typo is the word “though” instead of “through” in document where it specifies date of Democrat Convention as being August 25 through August 29, 2008.
I disagree!!! Here are the documents, they are not a wide open grant for discovery...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633550/03118745409
Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Ex Parte Application for Order re Discovery Matter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633565/03118746941
and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633559/03118746940
Any “Limited” discovery is ony allowed as it relates to the Oct 5 Motion to dismiss...
Now..whew..that makes sense.
the typo comment was sarcastic.
The difference between the 2 documents is the one that was filled in all 50 States omitted the Constitutional Eligibility sentence.
They didn’t want to get caught saying he was a NBC, when they know he is not. culpability
What age does it make us if we understand both references?
I will say it makes us JUST RIGHT!
(sorry everyone, will try to get back on topic)
What this court order does is vacate his decision for the Captain and to proceed for discovery tomorrow, if he chooses, Remember this judge is not Nakazato.
Is there a confident birther ping list on FR? I would like to be on it if there is one.
I sure hope this is true...
What is a ping? I see it all the time, but I have no idea what its for...sorry for being so dumb about it.
It’s just a way of alerting another FReeper to a post. There are ping lists for people who want others to alert them to a specific topic that is being discussed.
~~Looks true .... Scribd docs are up... PING!
Is this 9-14-09 hearing about the Kenyan bc
Lucas Smith is holding which Taitz said was
an urgent matter?
Prayers for Judge Carter.
Yes. Glenn said, "Forget about the health care bill,...this is bigger than that." He said, "Within 7-14 days everything will change."
I told my wife he said this. I told her the only thing I could think of which; would turn this country on its head is if Obama was forced out by just such a disclosure as this.
It might start getting very interesting, very soon.
This may be a misunderstanding of what Judge Carter ordered. I checked the court docket and here is the entry for the only order issued Sept. 10, 2009:
“MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER Referring Motion to Magistrate Judge held before Judge David O. Carter. Court orders First Amended Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory and Initiation of Discovery,filed by plaintiffs on August 20, 2009 referred to assigned Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. Accordingly, the noticed hearing date of September 14, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. before this Court is vacated(db) (Entered: 09/10/2009)”
It seems to me that all Judge Carter did was to refer the discovery motion to the Magistrate Judge who is handling the discovery aspects of this case and who Dr Taitz tried unsuccessfully to get removed. Am I missing something?
:) :) :) :) TY for the heads up. If NS sees this he is going to wee wee all over himself.
“Sorry the above is all jammed up together, but I don’t know how to fix it.”
Everything you need to know is in the Free Republic HTML Sandbox.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938739/posts
I understand that the omission of the Constitutional eligibility statement was the major difference in the two documents and that it was obviously purposeful. The article also discussed the “typo” which is seen in the date of the Convention: August 25 “though” 28, 2008.
BTTT
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.