Federal Court requested to investigate AP Story

from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email published

INTERNATIONAL NEWS AGENCY MAY SOON BE FOCUS OF ELIGIBILITY CRISIS
by John Charlton

(Oct. 25, 2009) — Eleven days ago The Post & Email published its story about the East African Standard report in 2004 naming Obama “Kenyan-born” — AP declares Obama “Kenyan-Born”! —; while this story had been reported elsewhere on the net in the previous 12 hours or so, The Post & Email was one of the first to attribute it to the Associated Press, on the basis of the “AP” logo attached to the report by that paper. The story took off and ended up being discussed on the Imus Show. As the writing of this report, more than 27,000 individuals have viewed our coverage, making the single most read article of our site, all-time, and each day.

Since the report was published, no credible denials of it have been published anywhere.

For this reason it remains convincing, if but hearsay evidence, that the Obama Campaign was painting a different picture of their candidate during the last 5 years.

Now Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama (a case suing Barack Obama and others, in Federal Court, Santa Ana, California), has asked Judge David O. Carter to take judicial notice of the article.

In her request, Dr. Taitz makes the following presentation:

Come now the Plaintiffs with this Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP Newswire, embodied and included in the Kenyan publication attached as Exhibit A.

Although the contents of this document are self explanatory, this document is classic hearsay: an unsworn out of court statement to be submitted for the truth of the matters stated therein. Moreover, it is unauthenticated, but is allegedly derived from a well-known and highly respected news wire service, namely the Associated Press.

If it were possible to authenticate the source for this information, and/or to trace, locate, and depose the authors and informants, and also to track the subsequent changes in the “story” as told over the newswires over the following four years, the Plaintiffs submit that they would obtain additional and important, and very solid, grounds for outlining the contours of a Complaint for Civil Racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)) concerning the 2008 Presidential elections, involving a massive scheme to defraud using the postal (document delivery) and electronic wire services for the purpose of depriving the American People of their intangible right to honest services.

Then Attorney Taitz reminded the Court that it has allowed limited discovery regarding evidentiary issues which might bear upon the Court’s decision regarding whether to grant or not to grant the Motion to Dismiss the case, presented by Obama’s lawyers, when Judge Carter ruled:

All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

For this purpose, and to prepare a Second Amended Complaint, Dr. Taitz argues for permission to undertake discovery of whether the AP did report this “Kenyan-born” attribution, and to depose the reporters who wrote it:

Plaintiffs submit that they need to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of preparing this Second Amended Complaint (to flesh out more fully the extent of the fraud and accordingly solidify with evidence allegations necessary to establish Civil R.I.C.O. standing). They accordingly ask the Court, in addition to taking judicial notice of the A.P. Wire bulletin attached as Exhibit A, to allow the following discovery to take place, addressed to a non-party, non-governmental source:

A deposition duces tecum on 15 days notice (rather than 30) of the custodian of records and archives at “the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization:”

The Associated Press

Headquarters: 450 W. 33^rd Street, New York, NY 10001.

Taitz then argues that such a request is not burdensome:

There can be no doubt that the information to be retrieved is relevant to framing the Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint. There can be no objection that this deposition will impose too great a burden on the Defendants because it is not addressed to them. There can be no objection that the examination of the history of reporting concerning the history of reportage concerning the national origins, birthplace, citizenship, and life history of the President of the United States world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization will impose any undue burdens on the Defendants, or on the Associated Press as a deponent.

Such an investigation of the Associated Press Headquarters would undoubtedly cause a national sensation; and hopefully shed light on what the Obama Campaign has been claiming regarding their “man in the Whitehouse.”

The Post & Email has prepared this report from an original copy of the Request for Judicial Notice provided by the office of the Plaintiff’s counsel. It should appear shortly in the docket of the case.