Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president.
In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the conspiracy theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices. Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can't be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can't show they are directly injured by Obama's presence in office.
"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch."
The birthers' suit claims that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief.”
Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper. However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.
"The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing," the government lawyers wrote.
Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008. Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama's election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.
"The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election," the motion states.
The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in "innuendo" and advancing "a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act."
Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, "Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama."
The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. There's a strong chance the session will devolve into something of a sideshow since a couple of plaintiffs in the case are now in a dispute with Taitz and have sought to bring in a different attorney to represent them in the case.
Ask author2. Usually reliable.
WTF is the DOj doing inserting itself into this?
What happened to all of Barry’s personal attorneys.
This is all about intimidation of the judge.
It has.
Based on what he's provided to date.
“Legal standing requires that the damages/injury be unique to the plaintiff.”
If that’s the case, how do we get class action law suits?
Re: Orly needs to get someone to proof read her filings.
Dr. Taitz is operating in her second language. How many languages are you fluent in? How many professional degrees do you hold?
Be careful when you criticize.
And just what has he provided to date that could be construed as "evidence" acceptable in a court of law???
It's affirmative only if the duties of their office are in question, not if their own actions are in question. If their personal actions are in question, they must pay their own way.
To which I respond that their personal actions have no bearing on the matter because they have no personal obligation to act. If they have an obligation to act, it would only be as an officer of the executive branch. I'm not even sure they have that obligation, but that's another discussion.
Then you say ...
have they fulfilled the obligations and duties of their offices. Are they negligent, partisan or incompetent?
So which is it? Their personal actions are in question? Or their actions as an officer of the executive branch are in question?
Well if someone told me that they had a $1,000,000 bill with Bill Clinton's face on it then I wouldn't have a problem declaring it fake, either. But is someone said they had a $20 with Jackson's picture on it that they thought was fake then one would have to see the actual bill to determine that. The Treasury has not issued physical treasury bonds for almost 30 years, it's all done electronically. It only offers savings bonds, and none of those are in the $100 million range. In fact, it has never issued any bonds of any kind in the denominations that were seized. Under those circumstances it wasn't hard to deduce fraud without seeing the bonds themselves. Hawaii, however, does issue Certificates of Live Birth. It does issue them in paper format. And they resemble the look and format that Obama offered. Given that, I'd say seeing the actual document would be required to prove fraud. But then again, that doesn't fit your plans does it?
I don’t know. Look it up.
I see you’re used to the onesie-twosie trolls. What I’ve seen in the last 2 years are tag-team trolls. First on the Tootyfruityrudy threads, then on the Certifigate threads. I noticed it on the Terry Schiavo threads before that but I didn’t engage at that time.
Regular trolls like the education trolls are fun, as you say. But tag-team trolls are allow openings for obamabots and others; they’re an incredible annoyance.
There are a lot of single-issue trolls as well. There were tons of them on the Crevo threads, and those threads were some of the most heated discussion on FR. But eventually, JimRob started noticing that one particular side didn’t really actively engage on other conservative issues and he started to key up on them in the same way they’d been treating their FR counterparts. They didn’t last long, and started Darwin Central, which has about 1/20th as many participants as FR.
Since this has been an interesting discussion, I’m going to repost it at the Trolling 101 thread.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum. (Trolling 101)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
Coming from you it's a point of pride. I could think of nothing that interest me less than your approval on anything.
The acting was mediocre and it certainly isn’t a film that most people would ever buy and watch again.
Considering the source I'd say that would be enough to put "Man For All Seasons" on anyone's top 10 list.
Of course basement dwellers like you, that live in Kansas with nothing else to do except watch for tornadoes and stare at flat land, I guess you have lots of time on your hands.
You live in Florida and you talk about OUR flat lands? Still I guess Florida is great when viewed through mojito-goggles.
Then where is that defined?
When is Beck going after Holder? Sounds like he might need to try that very soon if the DOJ is interfering with current court cases?
Maybe if you get Obama drunk enough for him to let his guard down and start talking too much.....
In order to 'redefine' something it has to be defined in the first place. Where in the Constitution is natural-born citizen defined?
Yeah. There is some resemblance to known good documents.
You remind me of an old boss who when confronted with "bad" information would close his good eye, squint at it with his glass eye, and declare "I don't see it!"
True story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.