ACTION FOLLOWS MINUTE ORDER FINALIZING DATES, DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENSE ON PROCEEDING IN DISCOVERY — Captain Barnett gives her reaction
by John Charlton
(Oct. 7, 2007) — At approximately 2:30 PM this afternoon, Eastern Time, The Post & Email learned that Judge Carter had ordered the dates finalized in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.. The finalizing of the dates for the trial is normal procedure when the Court has decided a trial will be held; thus, the order contained in the Minute Order is clear indication that either the Motion to Dismiss will be in part or wholly denied, or that Judge David O. Carter has decided to reserve judgment on the Motion to Dismiss until after the jury verdict in the trial — which is done in some cases.
In response to the exchange between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defense Counsel on the Minute Order and its significance, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. has just filed, minutes ago, a ex-parte Motion for Relief from the Stay for Discovery.
Forceful Exchange between Plaintiffs and Defense, earlier today
The reason for filing is explained in the accompanying exhibits, which detail the conversation between parties moments after the Minute Order was published. First Mr. Charles E. Lincoln III, on behalf of Dr. Orly Taitz, communicated the following to the Defense’s counsels:
Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
To which Attorney West responded, with the famous phrase of resistence from the American defenders of Bastogne, in the movie Patton:
To which Mr. Lincoln retorted:
Dear Mr. West:
Unless you can provide us with a more thoughtful answer and analysis of the situation, or can you ask Mr. DeJute to do so, We will report your Laconic response below to Judge Carter as the full and final statement of the United States’ well-considered position in this case.
To which Attorney West, replied forcefully:
You are obviously not a student of military history. Because you appear confused, let me be clear. Per Judge Carter’s order, discovery is stayed in this case. We will not agree to any discovery in this case at this time.
Hence, Dr. Taitz’s necessity to file immediately a Motion for Relief from Stay for Discovery, to lift the stay imposed by Judge Carter by his Sept. 16th order, reported previously by The Post & Email.
The Motion for Relief from Stay
Here is a recapitulatoin of that Motion, from the text of the filing.
First Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., explains the reason for the request from relief:
Come now the Plaintiffs with this Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery which this Court entered by written Minute Order in Chambers (Document 66) on September 16, 2009.
On October 7, 2009, the undersigned counsel received this Court’s Minute Order Filed October 5, 2009 (Document 81) apparently immediately after the hearing held that morning, in which order the scheduling order tentatively entered by the Court on September 8, 2009, was confirmed: “The Court now orders those dates be made final.”
Then she explains, that if the case is to go forward, as the Minute Order seems to indicate, that the previous stay of discovery prevents this for the following reasons, which regard witnesses to be deposed, and due notice to be issued them:
In particular, the Court ordered the Motions for Summary Judgment must be filed by November 16, 2009, to wit, the 40th day after today (less than 6 weeks). Plaintiffs can neither prepare any possible motions for partial or complete summary judgment nor prepare themselves to defend any such motions under Rule 56 by the defendants without conducting discovery, in particular, the depositions duces tecum of Defendants:
(1) Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle L. R. Obama (who, whether they have any personal knowledge concerning Mr. Obama’s actual place of birth or not [the Court suggested in Court on October 5, 2009, that few individuals recall any details concerning the circumstances of their own birth or immediate post-natal citizenship and residence], both have separate and independent personal knowledge of Mr. Obama’s life & medical history and records in his actual or constructive possession, his history of applications for passports and/or compliance with Selective Service Registration requirements, his personal physicians’, hospitals’, and educational records, as well as his presidential records and personal papers and archives which may have effectively been sealed at his sole discretion as a matter of executive privilege by Executive Order 13489 entered on January 21, 2009, whether such order was designed or intended to expand or contract access to previous Presidents’ records); these defendants also have direct and personal knowledge concerning Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s recent residence and employment history and causes or justifications for the use of one or more social security numbers in relationship to such residence and employment history.
(2) Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as Secretary of State is in charge of the extent United States Passport Agency and other governmental records concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship and other relevant records, as well as having personal knowledge of what private disclosures Barack Hussein Obama may have made to her and other Democratic Party leaders and officials of the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.
(3) Joseph R. Biden, who has parallel but independent access to many of the same sources of information as Hillary Clinton, as well as closer access to the President as his life history and personal information during the 2008 campaign.
(4) Robert M. Gates who as Secretary of the Department of Defense is custodian of all records concerning Mr. Obama’s history of security clearances, his selective service registration, his level of Department of Defense clearance (if any), and, together with Defendants Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph R. Biden, parallel but independent information concerning Mr. Obama’s private discussions and disclosures to other Democrats during the 2009 elections.
(5) Non-party witnesses around the United States who must be subpoenaed and summoned to appear for depositions duces tecum on not less then 33 days written notice unless the Court specifically shortens the time to notice and/or subpoena each and every party or non-party witness.
She then cites the disagreement with the Defense on proceeding with discovery, following the exhange which is cited above in this report (in the Exhibits attatched to the filing):
There is no possibility of agreement or stipulation regarding the initiation of discovery in this case. The Plaintiffs have corresponded and conferred with counsel for the Defendants this 7th day of October, 2009, by electronic mail, and submit the Defendants’ paired responses as Exhibits A & B. Because the Defendants’ position has been clarified, this Emergency Motion is submitted to the Court for resolution.
This disagreement, according to Attorney Taitz requires, therefore, the motion for relief:
There is simply no time for an ordinary time-table for setting hearings upon notice, and this Motion is accordingly submitted to the Court upon an emergency and expedited basis. If a hearing is required, Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel is available at anytime upon 2 hours notice to appear in person in Court in Santa Ana, or upon 5-10 minutes notice for appearance at anytime by telephone at any telephone conference.
But if the Court will not grant full relief, Dr. Taitz request at least limited discovery:
In the alternative, if the Court is unwilling to vacate its order granting limited stay of discovery completely, Plaintiffs pray that all proposed discovery be certified as relevant to the questions of standing, jurisdiction, and venue, on the grounds that Executive Order 13489 may have caused particular injury to each of the Plaintiffs in that it radically curtailed all Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their rights under the Freedom of Information Act and their reserved Ninth Amendment as heirs to and beneficiaries of the sovereignty of this nation to the exercise of their right to petition for writ of quo warranto.
And concludes the request, thus:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a speedy resolution of their Motion for Relief from Limited Stay of Discovery entered on September 16, 2009, by Document 66, so that Plaintiffs can prepare for and abide by this Court’s scheduling order confirmed on October 7, 2009, by Document 81.
Captain Barnett gives her reaction
Upon hearing the news that this Motion had been filed, The Post & Email asked Captain Pamela Barnett, lead plaintiff for her reaction, which was as follows:
I am cautiously optimistic. There’s a long way to go and it is going to take a large legal effort to ensure our success of exposing Obama’s vital records and determining his current citizenship status.
Also, it would be nice if finally we could get some additional pro bono legal assistance from non-profits that purport to defend the U.S. Constitution.
The Post & Email has previously interviewed the lead plaintiff in this case, Captain Pamela Barnett, U.S. Army, Retired; and also Mr. Charles Lincoln, regarding the events of the October 5th hearing in Santa Ana, California.