Barnett/Keyes v Obama: DISMISSED

October 29, 2009

Updated

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

Judge Carter GRANTED barry’s Motion to Dismiss.

Surprise.

But there were two important outcomes:

1-Third-party presidential candidates have standing.

2-Quo warranto is not unreasonable, it’s the only way to unseat barry, needs to be brought in DC.

Judge Carter methodically went through each group of Plaintiffs and explained why they don’t have standing – for the same reason as always. He conceded that the presidential candidates potentially have standing but they fell short on redressability.

He then went into quo warranto, FOIA, RICO and the other defendants. And then Taitz’s behavior, her supporters contacting the Court, affidavits of suborning perjury, bad-mouthing the judiciary who’ve have ruled against her.

Judge Carter’s opinion is logical and almost entirely unemotional. He showed displeasure with Taitz but did so professionally, leaving the obvious unsaid.

There were no comments about barry undergoing “excessive vetting during  the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.” No “blogged, texted, twittered and massaged” rants. No inappropriate “birther movements” or Alice in Wonderland or Yogi Berra quotes.

In fact, there were no real comments on vetting except to mention that Clinton and McCain didn’t bring suit.

Italicized were the amount of votes (69 million) that barry received – as if the sheer number was an argument all its own.

And ACORN? The caucuses? Hillary Clinton had more physical ballot votes than barry and with ACORN there’s no question.

Judge Carter said it would have been a different case had it been filed before barry was inaugurated. Which is odd (and unfounded) since Berg’s case–the original case–was dismissed by Judge Surrick before barry was elected (Oct 24) for the same lack of standing. One would think Judge Carter would know the precedents.

{Not a lawyer of any sort] But I think Judge Carter opened the door with this:

Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence that the President was born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President.

They most definitely did not argue that. barry’s Hawaii birth certificate does not exist for Taitz and her Plaintiffs until barry shows his long form birth certificate aka what Dr Fukino redefined as “original vital records”. And Taitz filed an affidavit claiming proof that barry’s COLB is a forgery.

Why do the Courts accept that digital image at face value?

Judge Carter quotes the Rhodes case and rules similarly, except Judge Land’s “SHALL NOT” was replaced by “WILL NOT”:

The Court will not interfere with internal military affairs nor be used as a tool for officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but will leave it up to the military.

Active Military:

Plaintiff Freese fails to meet the Article III standing requirements.

Retired/Inactive Military:

Plaintiffs fail to meet the Article III standing requirements because of hypothetical and speculative nature of injury.

State Representatives:

lack Article III standing because their claim of possible theft charges “should they accept federal funds pursuant to a unconstitutionally elected president is highly speculative and conjectural“.

Federal taxpayer plaintiffs:

have failed to allege injury-in-fact.

Alleged barry relative Kurt Fuqua has no special consideration as a relative over a nonrelative general citizen.

Plaintiff’s stake in this controversy as a citizen is no greater than the millions of United States citizens, and the harm he alleges is too vague. As such, Fuqua has not alleged an injury-in-fact because the grievance of a citizen in the alleged violation of the natural born clause is too generalized.

Political candidates are the only plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement – so Judge Carter switched to redressability issue.

In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully redressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the president illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States and leave the country defenseless.

Whose job is it to make sure qualifications are fulfilled?

Constitutional requirements for president are absolute but there are no instructions on which branch should evaluate whether the qualifications are fulfilled.

Because the Court finds that it does not have the power nor the right to redress the political candidates’ claim on the basis that they fail to address the redressability requirement of Article III standing.

Therefore the Court find that it lacks jurisdiction because the Palintiffs have failed to establish standing or injury-in-factand redressability grounds.

PLAINTIFFS DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTION AND SECTION 1983 CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.

Quo Warranto:

Quo Warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia code provides, “a quo warranto may be issued form the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United State against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes, a franchise conferred by the Unnted States ot or a public office of the United States, civil or military.

Thus it has to be brought in DC. Taitz was told this and her response was they won’t give it a fair shot because they are barry minions. That’s a straightforward sanctionable act for wasting the Court’s time if he was so inclined.

PLAINTIFFS’ QUO WARRANTO DEMAND IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER VENUE.

Freedom of Information Act:

PLAINTIFFS’ FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THESE INDIVIDUALS UNDER FOIA AND THE CLAIM IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

As far as the other defendants:

FAILURE TO [SET FORTH CIVIL RICO ALLEGATIONS] IS INEXCUSABLE, AND AS PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE ANY CLAIM WHATSOEVER AGAINST DEFENDANTS MICHELLE OBAMA, CLINTON, BIDEN AND GATES, ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THEM ARE DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTE: The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, comsidering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.

Conduct of Counsel:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court.…The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the arguments of Counsel’s case amongst the rhetoric.

Case brought Jan 20, 2009 and defendants weren’t properly served until Aigust 25th.

Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedures.

Taitz claims she did not tell folks on her blog to contact the Court.

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact the Court this Court via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical of her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision.

Not named, but he’s referring to the Affidavits of Lucas scumball Smith and Larry Sinclair:

The Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before the Court.

A professional warning not to call the judge treasonous. Nowhere does he mention sanction or the intent to report Taitz ot the California Bar.

Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that have dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction.

Respecting the constitutional and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic.

Quite the contrary, the Court considers committment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.

Thanks to Jack Ryan as always.

View this document on Scribd

—————

Tags: citizens against proobama media bias, The Constitution, birth certificate, proobamedia, natural born citizen, COLB, standing, orly taitz, usurper, president obama, barry soetoro, "birthers", barack obama birth certificate, JUDGE DAVID O CARTER, captain valerie barnett, barnett v obama, SACV 09-0082