ORLY'S CASE STILL ALIVE?...DID JUDGE SCREW UP OR DID HE LEAVE DOOR OPEN ON PURPOSE?...

Carter’s not yet given a final Judgement

October 30, 2009 by John Charlton
HAS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT RULES 54 AND 58

Legal analysis by John Charlton

(Oct. 30, 2009) — Dispite all his rancor and loony constitutional theories, Judge David O. Carter has failed to give final judgment in the case Barnett vs. Obama, leaving the door open to further filings and proceedings.

His ruling has not dismissed the case, but rather merely dismissed arguments presented so far. This is the interpretation had if you read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58.

Rule 54(b) reads as follows:

(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.

When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.

Rule 58 (a & b) reads as follows:

(a) Separate Document.

Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion:

(1) for judgment under Rule 50(b);

(2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b);

(3) for attorney’s fees under Rule 54;

(4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or

(5) for relief under Rule 60.
(b) Entering Judgment.

(1) Without the Court’s Direction.

Subject to Rule 54(b) and unless the court orders otherwise, the clerk must, without awaiting the court’s direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter the judgment when:

(A) the jury returns a general verdict;

(B) the court awards only costs or a sum certain; or

(C) the court denies all relief.

From this it can be seen that since the clerk has not yet added a Judgment record to the Docket, that Carter is indicating, despite his heavy handedness to the Plaintiffs, that he might allow a second amended complaint, which includes a request for relief for the political candidates, whom he acknowledged had standing, so long as their request for relief was redressable: such as a monetary reward howsoever small.

Judge Carter has from 10 to 30 days after his ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to add such a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice to the docket, otherwise he is formally indicating that he expects Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Attorney Gary Kreep, for his plaintiffs, to submit a request to file a second amended complaint. Indeed, without such ruling added to the docket, the Plaintiffs can initiate such a request action.

Posted in Law Cases | Tagged Captain Pamela Barnett vs Obama, Dr. Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep, Judge David O. Carter, Rule 54(b), Rule 58 a & b | 2 Comments


1.
on October 31, 2009 at 5:19 AM Jack

Looks like Judge Carter HAS enabled checkmate against Team Obama after all:

Well done, Orly Taitz case moves forward solely for Plaintiff Keyes for redressable relief of monetary damages, thereby avoiding political question (leave that to Congress once Keyes recovers even nominal damages for pre-Presidential fraud against Candidate Obama) and Team Obama has nothing to appeal to delay the trial.

2.
on October 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM Jack

CARTER DECISION FATAL FLAW: When all is said and done, ONE CLAIM MOST DEFINITELY SURVIVES, and that is Keyes’ claim for fraud committed by Candidate Obama before becoming President, which Judge Carter pretends away on the sole basis of Orly having filed same on 1/20/09 at an hour after Obama took the Oath. That’s a “red herring” because Obama took the valid Oath on 1/21/09, no Presidential immunity exists for tort fraud by Candidate Obama before becoming President, and “before-or-after” Oath filing by Orly is irrelevant for such case which does NOT seek Presidential removal, albeit Judge Carter pretends that IS the sole relief sought by Keyes.

--------------------------------
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ORLY, COULD IN FACT, FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SIMPLY FILE A CLAIM FOR ELECTION FRAUD AGAINST OBAMA...SHE GETS A JUDGMENT...THE WHOLE WORLD IS THEN OFFICIALLY ON NOTICE THAT OBAMA IS A CRIMINAL...AND THEN THE PUBLIC CAN PUT PRESSURE ON CONGRESS TO HAVE HIM REMOVED, SINCE CARTER HAS BEGGED OFF ON THAT ISSUE!