DOES NOT DENY THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE, HINTS FOR A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
by John Charlton
(Dec. 5, 2005) — Yesterday Judge David O. Carter of the Federal Court in Santa Ana, California, denied the Motion for Reconsideration submitted by Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., in the case Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..
Attorney Taitz had filed the Motion on the basis of the legal defects of Carter’s ruling dismissing the First Amended Complaint and to defend herself against calumnious charges made against her character by the Judge in his ruling dismissing that complaint.
Summarizing his own ruling, Judge Carter wrote yesterday:
After reviewing the moving and opposing papers, the Court finds no factual, legal, or bias grounds upon which to grant the motion for reconsideration. Counsel largely repeats the same arguments made in her briefing and oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss, which is prohibited. To the extent that she does present new argument, it is without merit and does not meet the standard for reconsideration. The Court’s ruling that it lacks jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on their remaining causes of action, stands.
The conclusion Judge Carter makes, therefore, leaves open the door for the filling of a Second Amended Complaint, which would contain a request for redressable relief for the political candidates, whom Judge Carter admitted in his previous ruling, were injured and did present a case for which the court had jurisdiction.
Since the filing of the Motion to Reconsider, Dr. Orly Taitz has been preparing her briefs without the assistance of Mr. Charles Lincoln, after irreconcilable personal differences ended their collaboration on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.
The drama surrounding all aspects of the case Barnett vs. Obama, however, pales in comparison with the fraud, criminality, usurpation and tyranny being imposed upon the country by Barack Hussein Obama, who entered into the White House by means of the rigging of the Democratic primaries and numerous lies and obfuscations regarding his personal history and eligibility.
The persistent fact that Judge Carter has not dismissed the case with prejudice, indicates also that the Plaintiffs can undertake similar action in Federal court to pursue their claims of injury.