The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 10/7/2009 at 4:35 PM PDT and filed on 10/7/2009
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:
Main Document
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Keyes Motion for Expedited Relief from Discovery.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/7/2009] [FileNumber=8568669-0]
[3782fd7160033f0f7b0fffa4312be89e130fe2fde4580ae074d21c7e737a4759c597
608813ae4ab07cc1640eb2b417c41e273cc006a1579e5ce5cf52f448e0ce]]
Document description:Exhibit 1st response from US attorney Roger West
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Keyes West 1st October 7 2009.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/7/2009] [FileNumber=8568669-1]
[ac3b0f8d8ab263577a72a200a1e17e11026d7fb0e36d8ae801f3f4d58b5bdb074872
c29f90e01dfb818bb9d37ff88d210877e02c64e7da4cd88ef1cb066083a0]]
Document description:Exhibit 2nd response from the US attorney Roger West
Original filename:C:\Documents and Settings\Orly Taitz\My Documents\Keyes West 2nd letter October 7 2009.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/7/2009] [FileNumber=8568669-2]
[3d98e88cfe8de711e451196db8aefca1370771bc02a0f9c15dc1baa033973168ef43
6ed22dc0a13aa8d828d3a5db26f075655711f328104f409c43ca412708cf]]
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7036
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
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 [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.
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.
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7036
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Wednesday, October 7, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing of the 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Charles Edward Lincoln to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Wednesday the 7th day of October, 2009.
/s/Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923-1889
Exhibit A:
Roger West’s First
Response to Plaintiffs’
Request for Agreement:
“NUTS”
Exhibit B:
Roger West’s
Clarification of
First Response
OrlyTaitzEsq.com
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 
October 7th, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Was Judge Carter responding to a motion by the Defendants’ counsel to stay the discovery on Sept 16? Have Obama’s attorneys ever offered any reason or cause at all why the president refuses to present his proof that he was born in the U.S.? If there is no cause acceptable to the court, then why stay the discovery aspect? Is Judge Carter taking into account the tremendous stress, confusion, hostile feelings which are beginning to surface all over America simply because the president will not reveal his proof of eligibility?
I think I am asking, Orly, has the Judge ever questioned the Defendants on this one huge point? Or does he spend all his bench time questioning the Plaintiffs?
October 8th, 2009 @ 1:21 am
Dr. Taitz:
Brilliant move!
The court did not deny MTD.
The court did not grant MTD.
The court only seems to have solidified the schedule for the case.
An average attorney would just sit and wait it out. It is a brilliant move on your part to press at this possible opening. What’s the worst the court can do, deny your motion? Well, we’ve seen plenty of that. On the other hand, what if they grant your motion? Or, to put it another way, nothing ventured, nothing gained. You don’t win by sitting on the sidelines. Press every advantage.
I’ve seen all the talking points on other blogs about what Judge Carter can and cannot do. I’m not going to evaluate all the arguments raised; just that, should the case proceed, at the very least, the veil of secrecy surrounding Obama may just be lifted enough to raise a firestorm of protest.
And finally the country will begin to discover the deeper meaning of what is a natural born citizen.
Leon Brozyna
CW2, USA (Ret)
October 8th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Article IV Section 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public …records …of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such… records …shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Whether Obama is constitutionally “eligible to the office of President”, and thus eligible for “the carrying out of [the] constitutional… duties of the President”, depends upon whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
“Presidential records” means documentary materials …which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional …duties of the President.
“Personal records” means all documentary materials …which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional …duties of the President.
Whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States depends upon the information contained within his original long form birth certificate.
Thus, Obama’s original long form birth certificate unequivocally relates to and has an effect upon whether or not he is eligible for “the carrying out of [the] constitutional… duties of the President”.
Thus, Obama’s original long form birth certificate is not a “personal record” according to the US CODE regarding “Presidential records”. Please see US CODE, Title 44, Chapter 22, § 2201 (3), which is copied below.
Hence, pursuant to US CODE, Title 44, Chapter 22, § 2205 (2)(A), Obama’s original long form birth certificate “shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil …investigation or proceeding.
Please note that US CODE Sections 2201 and 2205 are Article IV “general laws” enacted by the Congress which “prescribe the manner in which such… [public Presidential] records …shall be proved…”
Thus, perhaps Article IV and the US CODE will result in what no Senators or Representatives have been willing to do, which is to support and defend Article II of the Constitution of the United States.
Please note, Obama’s original long form birth certificate relates to the very heart of whether or not Obama is eligible to carry out the ever present “consitutional …duties of the President”. The “carrying out of [the] constitutional… duties of the President” is thus an ongoing requirement of the President. Thus, Obama’s original long form birth certificate does not exclusively relate to Obama’s “election to the office of the Presidency”. Hence, § 2201 (2) (C), above, does not apply to Obama’s original long form birth certificate
§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to section 2204—
(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available—
(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil …investigation or proceeding;[including but not limited to a UIPA §92F-15 Judicial Enforcement Proceeding].
Article IV Section 1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public …records …of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such… records …shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
US CODE – TITLE 44 – CHAPTER 22 – PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_22.html
§ 2201. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “documentary material” means all …documents…
(2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials …which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional …duties of the President.
Such term [“Presidential records”]—
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional… duties of the President; but
(B)[The term “Presidential records”] does not include any documentary materials that are…
(ii) personal records;
(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials …which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional …duties of the President.
Such term [“personal records”] includes—
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency…
October 8th, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
As a paralegal for over 30 years, it still baffles me that our court system can get away with playing games with right and wrong. Watching the game of not granting discovery yet setting a summary judgment deadline is exacting the type of game playing we see all the time. Good job in addressing the games but the fact remains – our court system needs to be more honest and allow discovery – and full disclosures -and hold the guilty accountable – whomever they may be – president or not!
October 8th, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
what does attachment B say–the clarification?
October 8th, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Orly-what about Hawaii Department of Health officials-they have the documents-dont waste time-also Custodian of Records of Occidental etc., also-also remember Senate Resolution 511 (Sec Chertoff-he stated his definition of “natural born citizen”-at the hearing-if Obama testifies to birth to Kenyan Citizen father-or have Court take Judicial Notice of statements by Obama-essentially game over.The Court also seems to be unduly pressing you to present your case on a short schedule virtually without discovery-it apppears that this is a negative development-which could result in an adverse Judgment which could then be said to be “on the merits” and be used as “res judicata” in any future cases. Be careful!