The Betrayal

WILL CONSIDER TAITZ’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF HIS OCT. RULING
by John Charlton

(Dec. 14, 2009) — Yesterday, Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in the case Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.,  filed a Motion for Clarification in the Federal District Court of California, Middle Division, seeking to know whether Judge David O. Carter’s ruling on Oct. 29th, closed the case — as has been widely asserted by Obama supporters on blogs and in the Main Stream Media — or  whether he remains open to allowing the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, as The Post & Email has maintained on the counsel of legal experts.

It appears that Attorney Taitz has filed the said Motion after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in response to the filing of petition of appeal on Nov. 17th with that court by Attorney Gary Kreep, of the U.S. Justice Foundation (on behalf of his plaintiffs, Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson), stayed any action in its own court on the grounds that the litigation in Carter’s court had not yet terminated. This, and the repeated omission by Judge Carter to declare the case dead — which in judicial terms is stated through the expression, “Denied with prejudice” — argues that the case is very much alive, but only that the Plaintiffs have to put their claims of injury and claims for redress in a form more acceptable to that court.

Judge David O. Carter had denied the arguments of the Plaintiffs in the case, as contained in their First Amended Complaint, by his order granting the government’s Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 29, 2009. On Dec. 4th, he also denied their Motion for Reconsideration of his October ruling.

Yesterday, the docket showed the recent filing of a Notice of Motion and Motion for Clarification, by Attorney Taitz, in which it was announced that on Jan. 4, 2010, a Motion Hearing will be held at the Federal Court Building in Santa Ana, California, to clarify the status of the case.

This hearing was scheduled after Dr. Taitz and assistant U.S. Attorney Robert West held a telephone conference on Friday morning, at 11:55 AM Pacific Time.

The Motion submitted yesterday via Pacer, argues as follows:

The order did not state that it was a final order and it did not state that it was a dismissal withprejudice. The order stated that this court does not have jurisdiction to remove the president under Quo Warranto and noted that other causes of action were not fully plead. Wherefore the undersigned counsel understands that the order was not a final order In the case, that since the case was never argued on the merits, there was no adjudication with prejudice and therefore the undersigned counsel can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on the remaining causes of action within 30 days from the denial of the Motion for reconsideration.

And seeks the following relief:

WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel requests clarification and confirmation that the 10.29.09. order was not a final order, that it was not an order with prejudice and that she can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on all causes of action aside from Quo Warranto.

See the tags at the bottom of this article for many more reports on the issues mentioned here.

Tags: Barnett v. Obama, DR. ORLY TAITZ //