Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal

Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal

By: Devvy Kidd, November 5, 2009
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/barnett_v_obama_110509.html

Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October
29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge David
Carter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build each
time one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last
breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visit
from the Secret Service.

I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes to
understand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us.
This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed before
Obama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22
(http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt), Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009
at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).

From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As
we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. Supreme
Court Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course,
this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in on
January 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/22/nation/na-obama-oath22

From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant)
that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one must
to understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January
26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion to
dismiss.

If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC
(http://tinyurl.com/yc5ywr6), she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery and
that Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30
days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied people
to a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast?

All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides.
In this particular post, (http://tinyurl.com/mg5xrh) John Charlton maintains that early
discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:

“Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss

"This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours that
Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in
Santa Ana Federal Court.

"The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the

Page 1 of 5
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal

Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding
preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This
seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be
followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time.
Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the
principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called
Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document
(http://tinyurl.com/y9pw6gr) is unclear at this time."

The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge:
(http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM41_birtherscarterorder.pdf) Order Denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and Denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application for
Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.

I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below;
see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of
my readers knows the link they can send it along.

If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009 (http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt). When
I mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning on
page 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in the
public domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See the
transcript of the hearing, page 21 where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "... a vehicle
and an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to get
the defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 that
he doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerning
the merits."

Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty
of the Quo Warranto (§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial: http://tinyurl.com/QW-Pleading)

In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty"
as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be,
may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either
party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat.
603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed.,
§ 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)

In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes this
statement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order
that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery
before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of
Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early
stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight
deadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2: http://tinyurl.com/yaqawlg)

Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application

Page 2 of 5
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal

for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can read
it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22249214/Barnett-v-Obama-Ex-Parte-Appl-Limited-Stay-9-10-
09

At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case was
dismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be taken
away.

This is Judge Carter's ruling (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21903414/Barnett-v-Obama-

Carter-Dismisses-Suit) on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. The
issue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and that
it must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. Judge
Carter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501
(http://tinyurl.com/QuoWarranto). Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would be
reversed on appeal filed by the defendants.

Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/21903414/Barnett-v-Obama-Carter-Dismisses-Suit). In her
own defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5801. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 in
Orly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims:
http://larrysinclair.org/LarrysForum/topic/taitz-major-bs#post-66

Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (social
security numbers). See this [July 13, 2009] transcript, page 8: http://tinyurl.com/y8ks3rt.

Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago on
her web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separated
them. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by her
investigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least see
if the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs,
due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.

Barack Hussein Obama

http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Obama_addresses.pdf

Stanley Ann Dunham (his deceased mother)

http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Dunham_addresses.pdf

Michelle Obama
http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Michelle_addresses.pdf

I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how
many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The same
applies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they are
all for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter
(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5725), Ms. Daniels states:

Page 3 of 5
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal

"I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack
Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have
been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as
fraudulent."

While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs
(For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?),
we just don't know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not
name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons.
This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown
criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.

Following Judge Carter's dismissal of the case, both Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, attorneys who
represent the all the plaintiffs, indicated they will be filing an appeal. While I want Obama
removed from office as badly as millions of others, I believe an appeal will meet the same fate.
You might disagree. However, after watching dozens of cases get dismissed on standing
issues, I am convinced, besides impeachment of a lawfully serving president
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/19793333/Edwin-Vieira-Obama-Must-Stand-Up), a Quo
Warranto is the legal instrument to pursue. While I have tried to find an individual who might
qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) as I discussed in a
previous column, my efforts have not been successful to date.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17235893/Newman-v-United-States-Ex-Rel-Frizzell-238-US-
537-1915

Orly's plaintiff's have the option of filing new FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act request).

Orly has the option of pursuing the Quo Warranto with the District Court in Washington, DC.
At this time, I do not know if she intends on doing so, but that statute was written specifically
to remove a usurper. Rather than wait around for an appeal, why not pursue a legal process
that is available? Of course, you could file an appeal and a Quo Warranto complaint at the
same time if you want.

Are there any other options available besides those above? Yes, and Dr. Edwin Vieira covered
it in a column last year:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20188576/Edwin-Vieira-In-the-Shadow-of-Nemesis

"Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who
absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and
demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon
as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some
of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign —
such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in
Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.””

If an attempt at Quo Warranto fails, or one never gets filed, it may be that we have to wait
until the scenario described above by Dr. Vieira comes into play.

Page 4 of 5
Devvy Kidd – Understanding the Barnett v Obama Dismissal

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2
million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the
Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right
or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not
some political party.

Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email
alerts.

Page 5 of 5