Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Orly Taitz Has Email Sent to DOJ Attorneys Requesting Discovery Begin In Barnett v. Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 09:12 AM
Original message
Orly Taitz Has Email Sent to DOJ Attorneys Requesting Discovery Begin In Barnett v. Obama
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 09:48 AM by WeDidIt
Here's what was sent:

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.

Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.


Here's how DeJute & West responded to this request:

Nuts!


:rofl:

Upon further discussion, DeJute and West had to explain that Judge Carter's stay on discovery was still in effect (the incompetent buffons, Lincoln and Taitz, didn't have a clue).

So late yesterday, Taitz filed an Ex Parte Motion for Relief From Stay of Discovery:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA



Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action:

§

Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN

Michelle L.R. Obama, §

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, §

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, §

Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § EMERGENCY EX-PARTE

President of the Senate, § MOTION: EXPEDITED

Defendants. § RESOLUTION REQUESTED



EMERGENCY EX-PARTE

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY (Doc. 66)

ENTERED SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

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.”

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 , 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

/s/ ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.


I suspect this may speed Judge Carter along in granting the motion to dismiss.

:rofl:

Link to Motion

Link To Exhibit 1 (original email to the DOJ)

Link to Exhibit 2 (full email thread with DOJ)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. What about a motion to comitt
Orly Taitz to an institution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Granted!!!!
But, I'm not a judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. NUTS
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The best part was the fact that they didn't get the joke
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. That will keep me amused the rest of the day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. Battle of the Bulge
The German commander, Generalleutnant Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, requested Bastogne's (Belgium) surrender. When General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st, was told, a frustrated McAuliffe responded, "Aw, NUTS!" After turning to other pressing issues, his staff reminded him that they should reply to the German demand. One officer (Harry W. O. Kinnard, then a Lieutenant Colonel) recommended that McAuliffe's initial reply would be "tough to beat". Thus McAuliffe wrote on the paper delivered to the Germans: “NUTS!” That reply had to be explained, both to the Germans and to non-American Allies.

Beautiful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. And I thouhgt ever person who got through third grade history would understand the reference
HEck, if you've ever watched Turner Classic Movies, you'd get the reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Wouldn't they at least wonder why there was German
in the emails? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. Yeah, I remember it from movies as a kid
I once read an account by the guy who handed the message to the German messenger. The messenger were puzzled by the answer, 'Nuts, what does this mean?'

The soldier recalled telling the German messenger "It means we are going to kill every one of you fucking Germans!"

He said he had second thoughts about saying it as soon as the words came out of his mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. I believe that he said the F word but they use NUTS! because it can
go in the history books. A G.I saying nuts may have been possible but I think the other word would come more easily to his lips. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Nope, the official response was "Nuts"
From the American Commander to the German Commander:

NUTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Here's a link:
http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Bulge/kinnard.html


The funniest part about it is the double entendre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. You betcha Judge - Please commit this Oily T to the loonie bin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoFlaJet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. I can't wait until that big ugly smelly
bag of shit disguised as karma smashes her in her ugly fucking face-and it will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. I love me some Roger West, USACAC. The German was a nice touch. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthTater Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. I really hope this drags on...
...the entertainment value of watching Birthers freak out over non news is unparalleled!!!

:toast: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. Birther Shop Of Horrors----You'll Be A Birther
When she was younger just a bad little kid
Her momma noticed funny things she did
Like shootin' puppies with a BB gun
She'd poison guppies, and when she was done
She'd find a pussycat and bash in its head

That's when her momma said
(what did she say?)
She said my girl I think someday
You'll find a way
to make your natural tendencies pay

You'll be a birther!!
(You'll be a birther)
You have no talent and you're insane
Girl be a birther!!
(Girl be a birther)
People will shake all of their heads in shame
(heads in shame)

You're temprament's wrong for Rush Limbaugh
And FOX news will suit you still less
Girl be a birther
You'll be a big mess

(Here she is folks, the leader of the whacked)
(Watch her file that suit...Oh My God)
(She is so stupid, she will never ever be understood)
(Who needs a lawsuit by a clueless old broad)

--God it hurts--
--This chick's so dumb--
Ahh, shut up, and sit down, she's not done

She is a birther!!
(She is a birther)
And she enjoys the career that she picked
She is a birther!!
(She is a birther)
And she gets off on the pain she inflicts

She thrills when she files a bad lawsuit
It's swell though they tell her she's mad...no justice!!

And though it may cause Obama some stress
Somewhere, somewhere in heaven above her
She knows, she knows, that Obama's born Kenyan
Oooooobama

Cause she's a birther
And a big mess

Say ahhhhhhh
--ahhhhhhh--
Say ahhhhhhh
--ahhhhhhh--
Say AHHHHHHH
--AHHHHHHH--
NOW SPIT!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Well, judging from Mr. Lincoln's inappropriate capitalizations of
"we" and "laconic", I have to deem him a Moran Extraordinaire. To his credit, he did not misspell "laconic".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ex-Parte motion is nixed by judge
Short in chamber proceedings.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818346/03118914830

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I guess that cuts their victory celebration short.
And signals to me, great sage that I am, that the motion to dismiss will be granted. (If that's how it's said in legalese.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. It's not rocket surgery, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Well, since there has yet to be a Birther case that gets beyond the motion to dismiss
there is always a first time, but the safe bet is the MTD is granted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. That should harsh the Birther's mellow
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC