If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by John Charlton

UPDATE (12/16/09): Judge Carter did not grant a hearing, but issued an in chamber order today, closing the case.

If the Plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama ever get justice, it might very well lead to the arrest and imprisonment of the Marxist who has usurped the U.S. Presidency.

(Dec. 14, 2009) — Yesterday, Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in the case Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.,  filed a Motion for Clarification in the Federal District Court of California, Middle Division, seeking to know whether Judge David O. Carter’s ruling on Oct. 29th, closed the case — as has been widely asserted by Obama supporters on blogs and in the Main Stream Media — or  whether he remains open to allowing the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, as The Post & Email has maintained on the counsel of legal experts.

It appears that Attorney Taitz has filed the said Motion after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in response to the filing of petition of appeal on Nov. 17th with that court by Attorney Gary Kreep, of the U.S. Justice Foundation (on behalf of his plaintiffs, Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson), stayed any action in its own court on the grounds that the litigation in Carter’s court had not yet terminated. This, and the repeated omission by Judge Carter to declare the case dead — which in judicial terms is stated through the expression, “Denied with prejudice” — argues that the case is very much alive, but only that the Plaintiffs have to put their claims of injury and claims for redress in a form more acceptable to that court.

Judge David O. Carter had denied the arguments of the Plaintiffs in the case, as contained in their First Amended Complaint, by his order granting the government’s Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 29, 2009. On Dec. 4th, he also denied their Motion for Reconsideration of his October ruling.

Yesterday, the docket showed the recent filing of a Notice of Motion and Motion for Clarification, by Attorney Taitz, in which it was announced that on Jan. 4, 2010, a Motion Hearing will be held at the Federal Court Building in Santa Ana, California, to clarify the status of the case.

This hearing was scheduled after Dr. Taitz and assistant U.S. Attorney Robert West held a telephone conference on Friday morning, at 11:55 AM Pacific Time.

The Motion submitted yesterday via Pacer, argues as follows:

The order did not state that it was a final order and it did not state that it was a dismissal withprejudice. The order stated that this court does not have jurisdiction to remove the president under Quo Warranto and noted that other causes of action were not fully plead. Wherefore the undersigned counsel understands that the order was not a final order In the case, that since the case was never argued on the merits, there was no adjudication with prejudice and therefore the undersigned counsel can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on the remaining causes of action within 30 days from the denial of the Motion for reconsideration.

And seeks the following relief:

WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel requests clarification and confirmation that the 10.29.09. order was not a final order, that it was not an order with prejudice and that she can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on all causes of action aside from Quo Warranto.

See the tags at the bottom of this article for many more reports on the issues mentioned here.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Nicely done, Toni. It is paramount that leadership whether in business, government, education, etc. demonstrate visible integrity. When character (who you are when nobody is looking) trumps reputation (how you appear) the confidence from constituency is stable and supportive. The public lies that are now common place in nearly every Obama speech begs, yea even screams for accountability. And yet, none is forthcoming. Not only from the LameStream Media, but from both house of Congress. Greedy self grabbing (for power, money, control) is not only the norm in politics but servanthood (serving others in office) is despised.

    I write and fax my Senators constantly. I pray for our country.A genuine heart change is what is needed in DC throughout our leadership. That comes from God above.

  2. I am just an ordinary citizen in America, and not one who has had the benefit of exceptional training or extensive education; until the most recent two years, the extent of my formal education was the GED I obtained after dropping out of a public school having completed only the ninth grade. As such, I make no claim to possessing the wisdom I expect to see made manifest by those who hold positions that require levels of moral and judicial interpretation far beyond the reach of my limited intellectual base of reasoning. Still, for the love of my country and concern for my children and grandchildren’s futures, I struggle to grasp the full scope of the consequences of these proceedings, and the ramifications of the courts’ persistent disregard (?), denial (?), and/or failure to define or otherwise address (?) the interpretation of the language that our founding fathers used to codify the laws of our Constitution.

    In my struggle, I have seen citations pointing to what I imagine must be other cases that are thought to be in some way or another relevant to this present situation, so I, in my ignorance and naiveté, thought it might be interesting to see if I could learn to do that myself. Wow (!) I have gained a whole new respect for lawyers, judges and anyone else whose responsibility or privilege, as the case may be, it is to wade through the masses of volumes within which those records are contained. My humble thanks to all of you!

    Still, I want to share something I found online yesterday as I was exploring. It is from a memorandum that was presented in a case between David R. Myrland v. United States Department of Justice and others in 2005:

    “The need to use the Court’s supervisory powers to suppress evidence obtained through governmental misconduct was perhaps best expressed by Mr. Justice Brandeis in his famous dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928):”

    Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.

    http://www.jurisinformatics.com/RICO/docs/COMPLAINT/TAB5_MEMO.pdf. Page 49, lines 4-13.

    Now, I don’t know whether or not the above quoted material is applicable in this case in the legal sense or not, but it sure spoke to me about the dangers we could face if we fail to adequately address issues like this that are not only so critical to our current national security, but so vital to the preservation of our very way of life; we can only hope to keep the freedoms we enjoy if we have the courage, compulsion, and conviction to preserve what so many gave their lives to provide for us. To that end also, this court should also “resolutely set its face”, and do that which it is uniquely qualified to do, interpret the language of the law.