Font size: Font face:

To view this item online, visit

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Judge stalls access to Obama birth data

Says he'll adjust trial date if plaintiffs need time for researching prez records

A judge has told lawyers whose clients are challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president they cannot start digging into the president’s historical records right now, and he’ll adjust a scheduled Jan. 26, 2010, trial date if they end up needing more time for their research.

The ruling comes from U.S. District Judge David Carter in a California lawsuit brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.

They are suing Obama alleging that he was not and is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen in the Oval Office. They are represented by Orly Taitz, who has worked on a multitude of lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility, and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Kreep had responded to the government’s motion requesting a stay in the discovery process, the procedures through which valuable evidence is assembled in a lawsuit, by requesting immediate access to Obama’s records such as his original long-form birth certificate and his Occidental College records.




Carter has been handling motions in the case, including the government’s motion to dismiss, in which Justice Department lawyers representing Obama claimed that the courts have no jurisdiction over any parts of the question.

The government’s motions have been opposed by Kreep, who expressed concern the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by having their search of the evidence delayed, and the possible shortened time period for that process between the Oct. 5 hearing and the January trial.

Carter granted Obama’s motion for limited stay of discovery, saying the court, not the defendants, will determine what evidence would be pertinent to the case and if the plaintiffs are hampered by the time frame imposed by the court, he will hear “any proposed new trial dates” during the Oct. 5 hearing.

Rumors had circulated on the Internet that the discovery process already had begun, because of Carter’s earlier ruling that encouraged cooperation and as much movement forward as the two sides could agree to.




Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.


In the U.S. Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, attorneys didn’t address the concerns directly but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, stating the matter can’t be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

Kreep has explained that existing court precedent includes the right for a candidate or a political party “to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on theory that doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances.”

“Dr. Drake has an interest in having a fair competition,” Kreep’s USJF brief has argued. “This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains. …

“Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Dr. Wiley Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States.”

Kreep also explained the motion to dismiss is incorrect “in a number of ways” regarding the Constitution’s assignment of presidential eligibility verification.

“Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements,” he wrote.

“Here, the issue is one arising under the Constitution,
whether Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements for the office of president
of the United States, as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. As
established above, PLAINTIFFS have standing to bring this action as they have
suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Barack Obama, for which the court has
a remedy. Because PLAINTIFFS have established the requirements for standing,
and because this case presents an issue regarding a federal question arising out of
the Constitution, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised in
this case,” he wrote.









© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved.