Keyes>Barnett v. Obama Hearing Was Entertaining
There was less drama than comedy in yesterday’s Keyes>Barnett v. Obama show in the US District Court in Santa Ana, California. In the nice-sized crowd of about 120: a Missouri State Representative, who believes hunger for children is a “positive motivator,” a notorious forger, a Baptist minister who prays for the President to die, and a Long Beach, California police officer.
Quite the cast of characters.
Noticeably absent: Charles Edward Lincoln III, who has been Orly’s faithful legal assistant. Gone undetected was Capt. Connie Rhodes, who must be too busy with the Army in Georgia. And nowhere to be seen was Alan Keyes, at one time lead plaintiff.
Off-stage, the Obama-obsessed Larry Sinclair, reportedly had a big fight with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., got on a plane and went home, instead of to the courthouse. And in Birther Ed Hale’s chat room, shortly after confirmed on his radio show, it was claimed $2.5 million was offered to Lucas Smith for his Fake Kenyan Birth Certificate, and he turned it down. At least an Edbot appropriately named “GOBUCKS” is willing to go to court and swear to it.
At the second hearing in this case in under two months, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., for the second time, barged up to the counsel table, interrupting somebody else’s hearing, and was directed back where she came from. When it was her turn, she fiddled with the microphone so much, the Judge left the bench to turn it on for her.
At one point in the proceedings, he ordered the warring plaintiffs’ attorneys, Taitz and Kreep, out of the courtroom to kiss and make up. When he wasn’t satisfied with their canoodling, he ordered them to sit closer together at the counsel table, saying, “I’m very visual. I need to see you two as one.”
I don’t want to give the impression that Judge David O. Carter is a clown, far from it. I am impressed with how methodically he is constructing the technics of the case. He is sober, respectful, and reasonable with all parties. When it comes to Birfoonery in his courtroom, well, I can understand how even a judge could turn a bit clever in tone.
More seriously, he said to Orly:
You are about to cause a huge delay, and cause a procedural quagmire because of your refusal to work with each other. Because of this dispute between you and Kreep, you are going to delay everything. Is this about you representing your clients or is this about you, personally?
This whole dispute undercuts your argument that it’s urgent, because you refuse to get along together, even though it’s urgent. You are saying things are going downhill, but you are the one causing delays by not resolving this issue.
In his subsequent Order granting Kreep’s Motion against her, Judge Carter wrote:
In this case, Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake allege that they should be relieved judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because their counsel acted contrary to their wishes in requesting a voluntary dismissal. Counsel Taitz refused to sign the substitution of attorney form presented to her by Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake. This action was improper because a client has the right to fire a lawyer at any time, with or without cause. Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784 (Cal. 1972).
Counsel’s actions became even more objectionable when Counsel, apparently with full knowledge that Plaintiffs wished to remain in the present litigation with different counsel, chose to take further action on behalf of those clients and have them dismissed from the action.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel should not let personal differences with the attorney who Plaintiffs desired to be her substitute further delay or interfere with these proceedings.
He wouldn’t stand for her nonsense in court about death threats and murders and witnesses appearing out of the blue, either.
You’re bringing a witness in here without notice? This is surprise and ambush. You are not going to do that.
Nor was he pleased with the way she keeps adding plaintiffs:
I thought we were narrowing this case. All that happens when you add additional plaintiffs is that it drags things out. It’s not good for the country and it doesn’t help your case in any way.
The upshot of the day:
Judge Carter accepted Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s Proof of Service to Defendants on August 25, in response to their Notice of Failure to Serve Process filed on August 19.
Judge Carter Granted the Government’s request for an October 5 hearing on their Motion to Dismiss. Taitz and Kreep have until September 21 to respond and then the Government responds to them by September 28.
Judge Carter issued an Order setting the same date for a scheduling conference to be held in the event the Motion to Dismiss is denied. He blocked out a rough calendar for future hearings and, if things get far enough that various hurdles are cleared, a trial in January, 2010.
Judge Carter Granted Gary Kreep’s Application to Vacate Plaintiffs Voluntary Dismissal for his clients Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson; the less than Voluntary Dismissal had been filed by Taitz on August 1.
Judge Carter Denied both Taitz’s Motion to review the actions of the Magistrate Judge and her Motion to recuse him. A Notice of Motion filed by Taitz on August 20 of an Amended Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory and Initiation of Discovery was put off until after the October 5 Dismissal Hearing. (9/10/09: The Motion has been returned to Magistrate Judge Nakazato.)
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. was not happy with this outcome. She pushed for expedited discovery, so Obama could just resign and there would be new elections. Heh. But, as expected, the Defense objected, arguing that discovery at this point is inappropriate since the court has not established it properly has jurisdiction.
Judge Carter agreed, telling Taitz, who still wanted to proceed then and there, “We can’t do discovery due to the motion to dismiss”; and, when she insisted there were witnesses in mortal danger, “You know, I don’t want to hear this. I have to read the government’s motion. That may resolve everything, if I don’t have jurisdiction.”
When the Defense said: “There’s no reason to believe that a witness will be killed,” the judge cut him off and said, “We’re not going to have this testimony going forward. We’re just not going to do that.”
The Government expects to file a stay for all discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss on Friday.
I’m actually ready for some discovery: Lucas Smith, does your passport reflect a visit to Mombasa, Kenya at any time this year? How much money have you been paid or promised? How many times have you been convicted of forgery? This videotape purported to have been shot in Kenya, is it actually of an alley in the Dominican Republic?
Wylie Drake, have you, a man of God, really prayed to Him for the death of the President of the United States of America?
And down the list of plaintiffs. To the Sovereign Citizens: When was the last time you paid your income taxes? To the Secessionists: Is this your signature on this petition to break up the States of the Union? To the White Supremacists: Is this you in this photograph dressed in a white sheet?
Stuff like that.
Judge Carter cleared something up in his Scheduling Conference Order. Since the July 13 hearing, Taitz has been claiming she was promised the court would not bother itself with technicalities. As usual, she had that wrong.
This Court did not intend to suggest in the July hearing that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was being given a carte blanche to disregard the Local Rules that all attorneys before the Central District of California courts must follow.
My one disappointment with Judge Carter is that he let Taitz off easy, I thought, on her truly egregious behavior toward Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, even if he ruled in their favor and somewhat questioned her ethics. I hold out hope for the California Bar stepping in and I have it on good authority they are looking into disciplining Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She may have her just desserts yet.
Thank you to Wavey-Davey, Politijab‘s Court Observer, for a very detailed first-hand report.
Here you can watch Dr. Orly Taitz Esq.’s version of events:
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.