Important update.
Posted on | September 24, 2009 | 44 Comments
Yesterday judge Carter has issued a chambers order, where he stated that there will not be enough time to review the second amended complaint before the October 5th hearing. My understanding is that judge Carter is ready to rule based on the motion by the defendants and the response and numerous documents and exhibits provided with the response. My feeling is that he will come back with the Solomon’s decision, where he might dismiss one or more less crucial defendants, but will deny motion to dismiss against more important defendants. In this case the judge has room to maneuver and satisfy both sides with his decision. We all will be wiser in 11 days.
In regards to Leo Donofrio’s suggestion to send interrogatories to the whole Congress and Senate. I asked Leo, if he can practically help doing that, but he stated that he can’t.
I need to explain, that we live in a real world. In order to come up with practical implementation of this idea, I would need to get an ok from the Magistrate judge, prepare some 535 interrogatories and serve them. This will be an enormous undertaking, it will cost thousands of dollars for service of process and other fees, that I don’t have, I don’t believe it can be done in time, and the benefit of this undertaking will be very questionable at best. Judge Carter allowed discovery before the 5th only to the extend of the issues raised in the defendants motion. The connection between the interrogatory to members of congress and this motion is very tenuous. Bottom line, we already know that Dick Cheney didn’t ask for objections. It is a fact. It is my understanding that objections were supposed to be in writing and submitted prior to the meeting by at least one congressman and one senator. My supporters and I personally contacted offices of numerous senators and congressmen, they were not willing to object, I believe they were intimidated. Maybe there was a possibility for them to simply hand their written objections at the meeting, I don’t know, I am not sure of the rules, but bottom line I don’t see any practical way of implementing this idea and the benefit will be highly speculative.
I provided ample evidence in the complaint, supplemental filings and the response. I believe it will be sufficient to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
It is my understanding that yesterday there was an executive order issued by Obama, whereby release of presidential records will have to be authorised by the attorney general. My feeling is that Obama knows that Judge Carter is not for sale, that the motion to dismiss the complaint will be denied by judge Carter and he is gearing up for the stand of.
Comments
44 Responses to “Important update.”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 24th, 2009 @ 10:50 am
But will Obamas executive order affect the outcome, if Judge Carter agrees on discovery. Will you need an ok from Holder to actualy do discovery?
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Thanks, Orly, for explaining why Leo’s suggestion re discovery is not practical in this situation. Hopefully Judge Carter is ready to smash through the hollow shell of defense rhetoric and get on with resolving the serious and legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility for office.
Also thanks for the news re Obama’s latest executive order. This means that in effect Obama has to approve the release of any records about Obama, which sounds like dictatorship pure and simple. How dare he abrogate to himself power over all records concerning himself! The true face of tyranny is showing itself.
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:37 am
One more question: Is anybody doing anything with those two letters, from the DNC declaring Obama and Biden the candidates, signed by Pelosi? Couldn’t there be interrogatories and discovery on each state, that would be only 50.
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Dr. Taitz,
Are you watching Donofrio’s blog? Lots of interesting stuff there lately that may help you. Some said Obama’s COLB posted online, if real, would indicate it had been amended, as his has been according to Hawaiin officials.
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
How many senators need to answer in the affirmative to get the job done?
why do we need 525 of them to answer/
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Now Orly, please accept some advice from a concerned citizen. I may not be a lawyer or understand any of the fancy words in your brilliant legal writins, but DO NOT let the judge dismiss any of the defendants.
DO NOT let him hornswaggle you into thinkin any of the defendants are less crucial. They are all crucial! You wouldn’t have sued them ifn they were’nt!
They must ALL be CRUSHED and pay for their crimes against WE THE PEOPLE.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
I looked up the rule.
Actually the main reason is that there is no right to a second amended complaint. Consent of all parties or leave of the court is required.
I’m starting to worry that Judge Carter is making Orly follow the rules because someone got to him. Doesn’t he realize the case is more important than the rules?
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
D’Onfrio is an obot plant. You can’t send interrogatories to non-parties. He is egging you on trying to make you look foolish.
September 24th, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Dr. Orly you are true American Patriot and I stand with you! I am trying to get the thousands of dollars you need to service all the congresspeople who are LYING to the country about how they have been grabbed by SOCIALISM. When I get my SSI check at the beginning of the month I will mail it to YOU so we can beat back this socialism and keep the government out of Medicare! Also just tell me who you want silenced and I will do it.
September 24th, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Orly, doesn’t any executive order re: Presidential records have to exclude the man’s personal records that have nothing to do with any of his “Presidential” activity?
Also, I’ve been wondering for a while, in observing the many arguments in the various court cases, when a court is hesitant to provide discovery or permission to develop it – since they want some kind of evidence presented beforehand in order to initiate a basis for further discovery – just why there hasn’t been a much stronger emphasis on what IS admitted to already … that of the man’s British citizenship (whether only at birth or continued to this day). Once that is established in the mind of the judge, then the question of eligibility under the Constitution, with the presentation of the precedent cases in law having to do with that, could also be presented. It would seem that with Judge Carter – who is open to solving that question – there is the best opportunity to bring in all of the various rulings re: NBC that point to the ineligibiity of such a one with that British (or any other) loyalty.
There would then not be even the necessity for the various other kinds of discovery – UNLESS – one would wish to compound the fraud charges OR discover the powers behind the man’s “grooming” – educational or otherwise.
I just haven’t noticed any strong emphasis on that British citizenship fact, already admitted to by the man himself – in either your response OR Atty Kreep’s.
What you’re doing is excellent hard work – finally “discovering” a judge who wants to know some information instead of politicizing the question. Our prayers certainly are surrounding that Oct. 5th day.
September 24th, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
“Orly there is an article about you in the Harvard Law Record, news is spreading, keep up the good fight!”
https://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2009/09/24/Etc/Highlights.From.The.Hilarious.birther.Case-3782312.shtml
September 24th, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
You should contact Pastor James Manning. He has been one of the biggest advocates pushing this issue forward. Perhaps, you might be able to get an Amicis Curie Brief from him or there might some of means of Pastor Manning helping out in the case.
September 24th, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I have searched for a “Executive Order” issued lately, but have found none. The order he issued on Jan 21 2009 has the elements described by Orly. It might be what was reported.
September 24th, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Hang in, Orly, your honesty and integrity goes far beyond what you believe. I wrote a scorcher today to Judge Land, with copies going out to some very sophisticated people. Just hang on. I may be jailed, but thousands of people will know Judge Land much better. Obama cannot possibly win in every case when he is as guilty as guilty gets.
September 24th, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
I am truly hoping that Judge Carter is in fact a man of his word and that he will hear this case on the merits. Orly you have taken on a huge task and I hope you know how much you are appreciated. No matter what happens no one can ever say they tried as hard as you have. Can we all look into our kids eyes and say we did everything we could? Will Judge Carter be able to look into the eyes of the children and say he did what was right and true? I am betting that he is still a marine at heart and he will do the right thing. I know if it were me in the judges chair I would want to hear this pronto and in it’s entirety. Again thank you for all that you have and continue to do in the quest for the truth. God Bless you Dr. Orly Taitz.
September 24th, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Hi Orly
There is no listing of any new executive order on the Government website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/
Congratulations on the new look website.
Very best wishes
MarkR England
September 24th, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Hi Orly
There is no Notice of new executive order on website:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/
Great new look website.
When this is all done, you should stand as Senator. If the Repubs won’t play, be an Independent. Bring some honesty to the US Govt.
Very Best Wishes.
MarkR UK
September 24th, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Re getting Affidavit from Senators and Representatives.
How about sending a standard FAX to all of them, with your questions. Ask them to prepare their own Affidavits and express mail to you, all at their own expense.
If they are interested in protecting the Constituion and the proper qualification of the President, they should be willing to help out.
Keep/publish a list so that when all is done, an accounting can take place.
Regards
MarkR
September 24th, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
You’re my nomminatee for the Belle of Liberty award! Godspeed with your legal work! October 5th can’t get hear quick enough!
September 24th, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Orly,
I have information that Judge Land was in fact briefed indirectly by a member of congress who’s opinion and who’s collegues opinion is that this not play out in a Southern Court due to historically racially motivated justice, a militay officer, and a white plantiff. I have indeed information that a few members of the house who support investigations into the qualifications and possible fraudulent activites involving “a stack of incriminating documents” against the acting president BHO. It appears that Judge Land agreed with the assessment presented to him, therefore dismissing your case only to pass the “hot potatoe” to a historically less discriminating region of the US with a case involving a black plantiff. I have been informed that there are several southern lawmakers in possession of an incriminating “stack of documents” with the presidents name on them gathered through various sources. I hope I have cleared up any or at least some confusion.
Thank you and God Bless.
September 24th, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Dear Orly,
The code concerning objections says nothing about them having to be written and submitted before hand. There is a three or four step procedure followed by the VP call for objections. If there are any, the Senate retires to consider them. Anyone who says the objections must be given in advance of the vote count is reading something in the code that isn’t there. Why would the VP “call for” objections if they had already been received in writing?
September 24th, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
lets hope and pray for wisdom from the judge
September 24th, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
They have to be in writing.
September 24th, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
I suspect Judge Carter’s delay may be a blessing, if Orly needs more time to take a subpoena to Honolulu, HI.
Story Janice Okubo claims HI-DOH doesn’t destroy vital records.
https://michaelpatrickleahy.blogspot.com/2008/11/official-statement-of-dr-chiyome-fukino.html
Press Release:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wYOqE4H4V6U/SQ9jk0XwP8I/AAAAAAAAAZY/_LDcULdVwoc/s1600/08-93.JPG
So, if Obama’s vital records exist HI-DOH can find them, by the time you walk in the door, with subpoena.
In the end of this case, I predict a pile of heads will have accumulated at the bottom of this hill.
Good Luck and may God be with you Orly, as you trample the evils from government.
September 24th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
RE:sending interrogatories to the whole Congress and Senate….
Would this not need to be sent to members of Congress and the Senate that were seated in 2008 ? Many were defeated, surely one from each house could object as they would have nothing to lose.
September 24th, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Hi Dr. Taitz,
I emailed you recently when you were travelling to D.C. along with 4 other cities in one week. I offered to help if I could be of service since I live in northern VA near DC. I can tell you even if the interrogatories were served on Congress they probably wouldn’t answer them. I helped We the People personally deliver four signed petitons from Americans in 2002. We personally went to all 535 Congressmens office to deliver them and have a proof of service signed. To this day, as far as I know not one Congressman has ever answered those petitons. They were protected under the 1st Amendments “petition for redress of grievances” clause. In 2003 Devvy Kidd went to Congress to meet with the Clerk of the House about the petitions. When asked by her why there hadn’t been any answers, Devvy told me that he said we had the right to petition but not the right to expect answers. I think that gives some insight into how they think and feel about the people and the Constitution.
September 25th, 2009 @ 12:26 am
The president of the Senate fIRST calls for objections. THEN the written objections are handed in. Cheney failed to ask for objections.
September 25th, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Hi Orly
Great new layout.
No notice of any recent Executive Order on official website. May be red herring. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/
One day you should run for Senate.
Very Best Wishes
MarkR UK
September 25th, 2009 @ 1:38 am
I think the statute for that makes more sense when read from this point.When you read it from this point it sounds as if the “reading of any such certificate or paper” is simply the “order of electors vote for VP and Pres.” and the Objection must be called for after that, rather than some have stated Objections in writing must come first…and then the call for objections. If an objection is made, after the call for them, THAN the objector must submit it in writing. This call for objections pre-dates any written objection, and without the call, no written notice could be given signed by Official Congressmen objectors. This is what people were upset about.
“and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.”
Cody Robert Judy
http://www.codyjudy.us
September 25th, 2009 @ 1:59 am
Mary,
Yes, they have to be in writing, but that is submitted AFTER oral objections are made on the floor. There is nothing in the US code that says the objections have to be submitted BEFORE an objection is made ( which would be inconsistent with the procedures of the House and Senate anyway.) What is in writing are the specifics of the objection. Both houses then take a recess and argue the objections.
September 25th, 2009 @ 2:46 am
First executive order signed by Obama
Presidential Records
https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf
September 25th, 2009 @ 3:43 am
“…My feeling is that Obama knows that Judge Carter is not for sale, that the motion to dismiss the complaint will be denied by judge Carter and he is gearing up for the stand of.”_____________Orly, this “stand off” could be avoided if only Judge Carter would clear his docket such that he could take your case before Oct 1. Can’t you ask him to do this, since it is so obvious why Obama signed this exec order and have it effective Oct 1? Can’t you check with Judge Carter to see if he will say, “the court date has been rescheduled, you all get in to my court on Sept 29 or 30”?
September 25th, 2009 @ 5:25 am
If the news that Imagephreak is sharing with us on 9/24 at 6:20pm is true about members of congress having a hand in where the injustices wrought by our current usurper in chief are played out, you might think most people would be elated that the truth is finally coming out. I contend we should be very concerned about how it plays out. You see, I think to most of us; the rule of law truly should be color blind and it is not solely about whether you win or lose, but also how you play the game. What we heard in the beginning was, “if this goes to trial, there will be rioting in the streets.” OK, that is just plain wrong. The cases all along should have been heard on the merits and let the chips fall where they may. Now we hear that our representatives might be subverting the law and the legal process because of racial concerns. We are sick and tired of racism. If you subvert justice for one second because of racial concerns, you are breaking the law. Pure and simple. Also, we don’t care if it is a stack of incriminating evidence or just one page or one word, i.e. “Lie”. I say that misprision of felony (failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities) needs to be applied to those that knew of these egregious crimes every step of the way and either ignored them, obstructed justice or in some way delayed the legal process. It can be proven that these same congressman had “stacks of incriminating documents” in their possession BEFORE the election and did nothing about it. Just because you give us the antidote doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be culpable for giving us the poison in the first place! Not only can you not just arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you are going to obey, but neither shall you arbitrarily decide when, where and how it suits your fancy for the laws to be enforced. The procedural rule of “standing” is being absolutely abused in its application to the point where “We the People” no longer have redress of our grievances. That has got to CHANGE. Period. Until that does, the discretionary and inconsistent application of the law will continue unabated. And lets never forget the MSM is complicit in not reporting the facts about Obama’s ineligibility and the fraud and crimes perpetrated upon “ALL VOTERS” both before and after the election.
September 25th, 2009 @ 6:16 am
How can Obama issue an executive order requiring only the Attorney General to release documents? I thought that a new President only had the first 100 days of office to be permitted to issue executive orders. Correct me if I’m wrong. If he’s not following the rules here, it should be easy to get around this executive order.
September 25th, 2009 @ 11:08 am
The “race” issue has reared its ugly head again, according to Imagephreak above. That is really unfortunate and a great miscarriage of justice. It shouldn’t matter which court hears the case and what color the plaintiff or defendant is. Obama’s people always breathe the word “racist” anytime someone objects to his policies or actions. They play the race card; we don’t. That has always been his cover and that’s why the Democrat Party wanted him. They knew they could play that card over and over to get him in and hopefully keep him in.
The truth is that Obama ins’t qualified. I made calls to many Republican senators yesterday, and their staffpersons all know about the lawsuit coming up with Judge Carter. One of them seemed very appreciative when I informed him of the new case with Leo Donofrio. They KNOW Obama is a fraud. The aide even admitted to me that there are things going on behind the scenes that the public doesn’t know about.
So if the case will not be heard in Judge Land’s court, where did the politically correct congressmen and judge decide that it would be held?
September 25th, 2009 @ 11:13 am
To Mary,
You are correct that they must be in writing, but not in advance. When the objection is called for is when the written objection is given to the clerk, signed by at least ONE Senator and ONE House member.
At that point the House members and the Senators retire to their prospective chambers to begin debate.
The fact that VP Cheney never called for objections is a serious act of negligence as it was the people’s last opportunity to have the question handled in a Constitutional manner. Now it is up to Judicial review.
September 25th, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Obama did do this executive order but it was signed on January 21, 2009!
Executive Order — Presidential Records
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.
(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.
(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.
(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/
September 25th, 2009 @ 11:27 am
He did sign the Executive, however, it was on 1/21/2009!!
Executive Order — Presidential Records
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.
(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.
(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.
(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009
September 25th, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Since obozo just signed an executive order to keep Orly from getting her hands on his BC on Sept 23, 2009, which goes into effect Oct.1, it would be great if the court date could be moved to Sept. 30th. Wouldn’t that tick obozo off.
September 25th, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
“Yesterday judge Carter has issued a chambers order, where he stated that there will not be enough time to review the second amended complaint before the October 5th hearing.”
(Thats not what Judge Cater said. I read what he said. He said you couldn’t file a 2nd ammended complaint without permission of the defense! You are not telling the truth!)
Judge David Carter ruled that the latest filing of Orly Taitz in Barnett, et.al., v. Obama may not be supplemented, as Tatiz had apparently intended, without the permission of the defense (the Department of Justice, oddly enough).
https://www.scribd.com/doc/20131428/KEYES-v-OBAMA-70-MINUTES-OF-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-REQUEST-TO-FILE-SECOND-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-WITHOUT-LEAVE-OF-COURT-69
September 25th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Thank you for time and effort in this endeavor, however, I think that Executive Order you spoke of was the FIRST thing BHO did on January 21, 2009; he is a disgrace!
September 25th, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Policies and Procedures Governing Invocation of the State Secrets Privilege
September 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT COMPONENTS
FROM: The ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Policies and Procedures Governing Invocation of the State Secrets Privilege
I am issuing today new Department of Justice policies and administrative procedures that will provide greater accountability and reliability in the invocation of the state secrets privilege in litigation. The Department is adopting these policies and procedures to strengthen public confidence that the U.S. Government will invoke the privilege in court only when genuine and significant harm to national defense or foreign relations is at stake and only to the extent necessary to safeguard those interests. The policies and procedures set forth in this Memorandum are effective as of October 1. 2009. and the Department shall apply them in all cases in which a government department or agency thereafter seeks to invoke the state secrets privilege in litigation.
1. Standards for Determination
A. Legal Standard. The Department will defend an assertion of the stale secrets privilege (“privilege”) in litigation when a government department or agency seeking to assert the privilege makes a sufficient showing that assertion of the privilege is necessary to protect information the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations (“national security'”) of the United States. With respect to classified information, the Department will defend invocation of the privilege to protect information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958, as amended, or any successor order, at any level of classification, so long as the unauthorized disclosure of such information reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national security of the United States. With respect to information that is nonpublic but not classified, the Department will also defend invocation of the privilege so long as the disclosure of such information reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national security of the United States.
B. Narrow Tailoring. The Department’s policy is that the privilege should be invoked only to the extent necessary to protect against the risk of significant harm to national security. The Department will seek to dismiss a litigant’s claim or case on the basis of the state secrets privilege only when doing so is necessary to protect against the risk of significant harm to national security.
Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Page 2
Memorandum for the Heads of Department Components Subject: State Secrets Privilege
C. Limitations. The Department will not defend an invocation of the privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States government; (iii) restrain competition; or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information the release of which would not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security.
2. Initial Procedures for Invocation of the Privilege
A. Evidentiary Support. A government department or agency seeking invocation of the privilege in litigation must submit to the Division in the Department with responsibility for the litigation in question1 a detailed declaration based on personal knowledge that specifies in detail: (i) the nature of the information that must be protected from unauthorized disclosure; (ii) the significant harm to national security that disclosure can reasonably be expected to cause; (iii) the reason why unauthorized disclosure is reasonably likely to cause such harm; and (iv) any other information relevant to the decision whether the privilege should be invoked in litigation.
B. Recommendation from the Assistant Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney General for the Division responsible for the matter shall formally recommend in writing whether or not the Department should defend the assertion of the privilege in litigation. In order to make a formal recommendation to defend the assertion of the privilege, the Assistant Attorney General must conclude, based on a personal evaluation of the evidence submitted by the department or agency seeking invocation of the privilege, that the standards set forth in Section 1(a) of this Memorandum are satisfied. The recommendation of the Assistant Attorney General shall be made in a timely manner to ensure that the State Secrets Review Committee has adequate time to give meaningful consideration to the recommendation.
3. State Secrets Review Committee
A. Review Committee. A State Secrets Review Committee consisting of senior Department of Justice officials designated by the Attorney General will evaluate the
1 The question whether to invoke the privilege typically arises in civil litigation. Requests for invocation of the privilege in those cases shall be addressed to the Civil Division. The question whether to invoke the privilege also may arise in cases handled by the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and requests for invocation of the privilege shall be addressed to ENRD in those instances. It is also possible that a court may require the Government to satisfy the standards for invoking the privilege in criminal proceedings. See United States v. Araf, 533 F.3d 72, 78-80 (2d Cir. 2008); but see United States v. Rosen, 557 F.3d 192. 198 (4th Cir. 2009). In such instances, requests to submit filings to satisfy that standard shall be directed to the National Security Division.
Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Page 3
Memorandum for the Meads of Department Components Subject: State Secrets Privilege
Assistant Attorney General’s recommendation to determine whether invocation of the privilege in litigation is warranted.
B. Consultation. The Review Committee will consult as necessary and appropriate with the department or agency seeking invocation of the privilege in litigation and with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Review Committee must engage in such consultation prior to making any recommendation against defending the invocation of the privilege in litigation.
C. Recommendation by the Review Committee. The Review Committee shall make a recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General, who shall in turn make a recommendation to the Attorney General.2 The recommendations shall be made in a timely manner to ensure that the Attorney General has adequate time to give meaningful consideration to such recommendations.
4. Attorney General Approval
A. Attorney General Approval. The Department will not defend an assertion of the privilege in litigation without the personal approval of the Attorney General (or, in the absence or recusal of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General).
B. Notification to Agency or Department Head. In the event that the Attorney General does not approve invocation of the privilege in litigation with respect to some or all of the information a requesting department or agency seeks to protect, the Department will provide prompt notice to the head of the requesting department or agency.
C. Referral to Agency or Department Inspector General. If the Attorney General concludes that it would be proper to defend invocation of the privilege in a case, and that invocation of the privilege would preclude adjudication of particular claims, but that the case raises credible allegations of government wrongdoing, the Department will refer those allegations to the Inspector General of the appropriate department or agency for further investigation, and will provide prompt notice of the referral to the head of the appropriate department or agency.
In civil cases, the review committee’s recommendation should be made through the Associate Attorney General to the Deputy Attorney General, who shall in turn make a recommendation to the Attorney General.
Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Page 4
Memorandum for the Heads of Department Components Subject: State Secrets Privilege
5. Reporting to Congress
The Department will provide periodic reports to appropriate oversight committees of Congress with respect to all cases in which the Department invokes the privilege on behalf of departments or agencies in litigation, explaining the basis for invoking the privilege.
6. Classification Authority
The department or agency with classification authority over information potentially subject to an invocation of the privilege at all times retains its classification authority under Executive Order 12958, as amended, or any successor order.
7. No Substantive or Procedural Rights Created
This policy statement is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit. substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
ORLY, ARE WE ALLOWED TO CONTACT THE JUDGE AND LET HIM KNOW THIS INFORMATION? IF SO, I’M SURE I SPEAK FOR 99.9% OF THE FOLKS THAT FOLLOW YOU WHEN I SAY WE WOULD ALL CONTACT HIM AND BEG FOR AN EARLIER COURT DATE.
September 26th, 2009 @ 4:00 am
“…I think that Executive Order you spoke of was the FIRST thing BHO did on January 21, 2009;…”—————-Yes, I do remember that he signed an exec order on 1-21-09 related to the release of pres records. But I thought I read that this new exec order on release of info that may affect national security would be effective Oct 1, ’09. An order signed by him in Jan ’09 would not have an effective date of Oct 1, ’09. That’s why I think they are 2 different orders.
September 26th, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Did I miss something?
If this case was filed before Obama/Soetoro was allegedly sworn-in as Usurper in Chief, why is the DOJ representing him? Shouldn’t he be paying for his own defense?
Gordon