Attorney Taitz battles Attorneys General - Discovery to Begin!

The Post & Mail ^ | September 12, 2009 | John Charlton

[danamco]

We are not there yet, so no need to waste your breath on it!!!

[Non-Sequitur]

We are not there yet, so no need to waste your breath on it!!!

And I think I already know the answer anyway. In any case, we'll find out on or shortly after October 5th.

[ethical]

Exactly what I was thinking. When Coulter said we were idiots and didn't we have enough brains to at least do a google search and see B.O.’s birth certificate a million times posted, I could not believe she was saying something so stupid. In my mind I do not know what she could do to redeem herself. She lost all my respect. Particularly given the fact that she is a lawyer (albeit she did not really practice law very much) When she took Constitutional Law 101 and had to answer this question, “It is 1961. Your father is a British citizen and your mother is an American citizen at the time of your birth in Hawaii. Are you a 1. citizen 2. naturalized citizen 3. natural born citizen. Do you think Coulter would have gotten the wrong answer? I don't. So why is she so willing to get it wrong now? I have also always been dismayed that Coulter and Laura Ingrahm, lawyers, have never been willing to pony up and go to court on behalf of conservative values. They have an actual skill they could donate to the cause and they leave it completely up to people like me doing it pro se and not very well or an attorney who does not speak the language very well or know her way around the legal system here in the United States. Why don't they pitch in and help? They are all mouth

[ethical]

Yes, after reading the order by Judge Carter it does say that discovery will be handled by the other judge. There must be one case in front of Carter and another in front of the other judge but with the same discovery.

[campaignPete R-CT]

the ordinary citizen is reading court cases?
I have not heard one poster on here yet who has expressed an interest in any previous SCOTUS cases and read the opinions of those cases.

[ecinkc]

He's already moved the discovery process to the magistrate judge. If either side wants something, now or later, they have to go to him to get a subpoena for it.

El Gato, Thanks for posting this. Do you mean the magistrate judge approves subpoenas up front? I keep trying to decide just how important today (Monday the 14) may be in the eligibility timeline. Do you think that today Kreep or someone on behalf of the plaintiffs (presumably Orly is too busy with the other case) will seek to have a subpoena authorized that will "order" Hawaii Dept of Health to hand over the vital records/long form for The Dubious One (and/or maybe subpoenas for the college admission records, passport records, etc)?

More to the point, is there a chance that by the end of today someone from the California case will be able to hold up a Magistrate-authorized subpoena for the original birth certificate that HDOH will not be able to legally resist ?

I would consider such a development to be hugh (couldn't resist), but I'm guessing that it must not yet be realistically be imminent. Otherwise wouldn't there would be much more buzz about it? (Then again often when there's a lot of eligibility buzz, it turns out to be much ado about nothing so perhaps the relative calm about an authorized subpoena is a good sign?)

2 more questions about the subpoenas:

1. If I interpret you correctly that the magistrate has some authorizing role in subpoenas, how does the defense or the third party (HDOH or Occidental, etc) make any appeal against the authorizing of or complying with a subpoena that they consider unjustified?
   
   
2. Is it possible that the plaintiffs can be allowed to subpoena the original birth certificate under the condition that its contents remain strictly confidential from public access? For example, if the original long form says that his father was a known US citizen and not Barrack Senior, given that the case concerns eligibility and not general campaign fraud, could the real identity of the father be forced to be sealed from the public eyes?

Apologies if these are remedial questions that have already been answered. If most lay people on these boards should have already figured this stuff out just ignore me, and I'll study harder.

[ethical]

I agree. She can not miss any more deadlines or fail to follow court procedure. Where is Ann Coulter and Laura Ingrahm when someone needs them? Go to court and help this woman out.

[ethical]

Agreed. Taitz writes awful briefs and can not proof read. It is clear English is not her language and she does not know how the legal system works here. Let's say she is doing this not as a lawyer, because she's not too good at that part, but as a citizen acting pro se. What would you do to help her? Offer to proof read? Do research? Make sure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed? Please do. It would help the cause greatly and it sounds like you'd be good at it. Taitz had the courage to take it on and I am sure part of her courage and tenacity comes from being stubborn, hard headed. But that kind of person is what it took to get this case this far and I thank God she was willing to do it.

[American Constitutionalist]

Ok, I'll enlighten you, what I was referring to was that ordinary citizen, or the " NEW MEDIA " or blogs, talk radio getting the news, and information about the MSM or the Liberals, Obama, that the mainstream media refuses to report on.
I apologize if I didn't clarify myself in that post.

[campaignPete R-CT]

is there anyone here who is serious about the NBC issue, the legal case, not just the reporting of information in the news?

[Drew68]

“It is 1961. Your father is a British citizen and your mother is an American citizen at the time of your birth in Hawaii. Are you a 1. citizen 2. naturalized citizen 3. natural born citizen. Do you think Coulter would have gotten the wrong answer? I don't.

If Coulter answered "3" she answered correctly.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Drew, I noticed that you have been on this issue since at least JANUARY ... seeing that many (all?) posters have no interest in the law, they are only trying to present evidence, you haven’t had enough yet?

Is there anyone here yet who is interested in the law who is strongly arguing the “birther side”? I am not a lawyer, so I don’t volunteer.

[pollywog]

please add me to your ping list!

[Just another Joe]

Wow, I thought discovery wasn't going to start until after the October 5th conference.

It doesn't HAVE to for the defense.

After the scheduling conference the judge will ORDER discovery to start with completion dates set by the judge.

[American Constitutionalist]

" is there anyone here who is serious about the NBC issue, the legal case, not just the reporting of information in the news ? "

I'll say !! yes there is people serious, naming one, is a Judge Carter.
I hope you had a chance to read all of his comments from last week from the hearing he had.
Opps, I am sorry, my eyes are getting heavy, I need to get some rest now, but, I read it as " is there anyone " not " is there anyone here " ,,,, sorry, my bad.

[oldfart]

“i am new at this whole NBC matter. Is someone collecting information?”

I suppose someone is, just not me. There’s just too much information out there for me to try to collect. I am interested in the outcome, regardless of what that is. As much as I would like to see Obama tossed out of office I also have to admit that he just might be legitimate and all this hassle is just a smoke-screen to keep us occupied while he takes over the world.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Judge Carter can’t be serious about helping the plaintiffs or developing tactics in other areas to advance to NBC issue. He is a judge.
I guess what i am commenting on is that everyone here says this is the most important issue in the world, but actually discussing law cases pertaining to it ... they have no interest at all.
GOT PEOPLE ... GOT A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION ... GOT MY OWN IDEAS ... WHO NEEDS TO DO RESEARCH?!

RESEARCH? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ RESEARCH!

[campaignPete R-CT]

In March 2009, Representative Bill Posey, a newly elected Republican from Florida’s 15th congressional district, introduced a bill, H.R. 1503, in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require candidates for the Presidency “to include with the [campaign] committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” plus supporting documentation.[185] Posey explained his motivation as being to “prevent something like this [controversy] from happening in the future” by requiring “the birth certificate up front and take [the issue] off the table”. His initiative was strongly criticized by Florida Democrats, who accused Posey of trying to “fan the rumors on the extreme fringe of the Republican Party” and “pandering to the right wing”.[188] Despite the criticism, Posey’s bill has gained the support of ten Republican co-sponsors - Representatives John R. Carter, John Culberson, Randy Neugebauer and Ted Poe (Texas), Rep. John Campbell (California), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Virginia), Rep. Dan Burton (Indiana), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), Kenny Marchant (Texas) and Louie Gohmert (Texas)

[campaignPete R-CT]

Oklahoma Republican state Representative Mike Ritze proposed a bill in December 2008 requiring any candidate for public office in Oklahoma to show proof of citizenship. Ritze declared that he “does not believe Obama submitted an authentic copy of his birth certificate.”[174]
The bill, House Bill 1329, was criticized. The bill narrowly failed to become law, attracting a 23-20 vote in favour but failing to meet the 25-vote threshold required to pass

ALMOST!!

[campaignPete R-CT]

Some campaigners, led by Georgia activist Carl Swensson, have sought to “finally expose the conspiracy behind President Obama’s birth certificate” by forming what they term “citizen grand juries” to indict Obama.[151] The “grand juries” are based on the Fifth Amendment’s premise that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”