Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
But they did file. And their cases were brought to a conclusion. To date all that Orly has managed to do is file, spend 9 months serving the defense, and make it through two hearings. She has not made it past the motion to dismiss as yet. If she does that then you can crow about her. Until then she's just in the prelims, and not doing a bang up job so far.
As for clients with standing, the court is hearing the case because of the preponderance of evidence of the captain...
No evidence one way or the other has been heard, so saying that the 'preponderance of evidence' supports Captain Rhodes is a bit premature.
...given the defendents time to prove why the captain does not have Standing in the MTD, which he stated in court, in front of witnesses, but not in court documents, that the MTD was not likely to be upheld...
Here is a Transcript of last weeks hearing. Judge Carter said no such thing.
rly clearly shows in court documents that the court encourages early discovery on both sides, and that cooperation is encouraged as well. Mandatory discovery can happen if one side refuses to cooperate however. This is normal procedure, talk to any lawyer on this point. I have.
You are aware, are you not, that the defense submitted a motion to curtail discovery last Thursday? And that they are under no obligation to cooperate with Tatitz until the judge rules on their motion? Gary Kreep filed his response to that motion this morning. I doubt that Orly is aware that the motion was even filed.
She later received her law degree from Taft Law School in Santa Ana, California, and subsequently passed the California bar exam., argueably the toughest of bar exams.
There are those who say that the reason why California's failure rate is so high is because they allow graduates of law schools like Taft to sit for it.
Good talking to you N-S, keep up the good work. ,P> Same to you.
I have proven to you that this is not the case yet you continue to assert it. Tell me why section three of the twentieth amendment is in the Constitution. Tell me as well what the term "or if the "President elect shall have failed to qualify" means. You say opinions vary but have not told me what these passages mean to you. They obviously mean something or they wouldn't be in the Constitution. Please enlighten all of us and back up your assertion or stop repeating it.
...given the defendents time to prove why the captain does not have Standing in the MTD, which he stated in court, in front of witnesses, but not in court documents, that the MTD was not likely to be upheld...
Here is a Transcript of last weeks hearing. Judge Carter said no such thing.
Here is a Transcript of last weeks hearing. Judge Carter said no such thing.
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/090909/FrntPgObamaEligibility.html
Berg and Donfrio had their cases set aside because of lack of standing, neither have filed in federal court this year.
You are aware, are you not, that the defense submitted a motion to curtail discovery last Thursday? And that they are under no obligation to cooperate with Tatitz until the judge rules on their motion? Gary Kreep filed his response to that motion this morning. I doubt that Orly is aware that the motion was even filed.
Gary Kreep filed his response to that motion this morning. I doubt that Orly is aware that the motion was even filed.
She later received her law degree from Taft Law School in Santa Ana, California, and subsequently passed the California bar exam., argueably the toughest of bar exams.
Sorry, I messed up the previous post in the beginning...
...given the defendents time to prove why the captain does not have Standing in the MTD, which he stated in court, in front of witnesses, but not in court documents, that the MTD was not likely to be upheld...
This one, and about 40 other published reports, by different people who were in the court, say he did say so, and like I said before, you and I had this discussion before and I proved it then.
Actually it's very easy.
So it is your contention that the court reporter, who's job it is to transcribe every word said in court, deliberately excluded that statement from the official transcript? That's your proof? Or could it be that Orly heard what she wanted to hear? That seems to be very common with her.
My statement that they did not file this year is Correct...
But is relevant how?
They can be redone if standing is established.
And how does someone who does not have standing in 2008 suddenly, magically achieve legal standing in 2009?
If you want the truth, I question why you malign someone who is going after it????
Because she's doing it in a completely inept, and comical, manner.
Yes, I am aware that they filed, you are aware of Orly Taits response as well?
I've seen no evidence that she filed one. Kreep filed his this morning. Orly blogged about it.
"So, they can ask to behead me, too and I am sure Obama and his sidekick Eric Holder will love it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that judge Carter is going to say: Yes guys, go for it."
I can pretty much guarantee that Judge Carter isn't going to agree to have her beheaded, certainly not this early in the process. But theatrics aside, isn't it common to file a response to your opposition's motions? Should we take this reaction to mean that Orly isn't going to file any response to the motion to dismiss? It's due next Monday.
I am quite sure that this news is well known to her. Can you prove that it is not known to her?
Did you read it? That is Gary Kreep's response to the motion, not Orly's. These two are not working as a team. They are two attorneys representing different clients. Taitz made that clear in court last Tuesday - she cannot and will not work with Kreep under any circumstances. So Orly's on her own with the response. Why isn't she submitting one?
This and about 40 other published reports by different people who were in the court say he did say so, and like I said before, you and I had this discussion before and I proved it then.
My statement that they did not file this year is Correct...
They can be redone if standing is established.
If you want the truth, I question why you malign someone who is going after it????
Yes, I am aware that they filed, you are aware of Orly Taits response as well?
“So, they can ask to behead me, too and I am sure Obama and his sidekick Eric Holder will love it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that judge Carter is going to say: Yes guys, go for it.”
I am quite sure that this news is well known to her. Can you prove that it is not known to her?
Therein lies the conundrum. Several people have claimed to see the actual document, IF it is the real document. Sevearl have seen the Kenyan BC, IF its the real document. A court can force the production of a sealed document, IF it exists. Courts compell people to do things they choose not to do, and produce documents for court cases every day.
But your right, he can refuse to produce a document which would exonerate or condemn him, but to do so incurrs the wrath of the court. Summary judgements could result, imprisonment, deportation, some very unpleasant things I am sure.
Why should it? To cite an extreme case, what if the image had the wrong form number, or the wrong scheme for file numbers? You'd be able to tell it was fake without ever seeing the physical document.
The indications of fakery are more subtle in this case (although not much, the seal and the registrars stamp don't match the date the "certification" was supposedly issued.
Now a really good forgery would require detailed examination of the document itself
Hard time proving her case? Not really?
All she has to do is submit into evidence the ROE under Bush, and then the ROE under Obama. Obamas ROE make the war unwinnable, increase the chance of soldier fatalities, and are indicative of a disloyal president who is not natural born as required by Article II ,section 1 of the Constitution.
Bowing and kissing the hand of the King of Saud is also another indicator that Obama is not natural born.This list of indicators is very long at this point. She could really go to town on this aspect in the trial.
THe key question is what was the intent of the founders by including Article II in the Constitution, a question which has never been adjudged, AND IT SOON WILL BE. Naturally we on FR are rooting for the home team.
You root for the traitors. ZOTs to you! LOL.
If it ever gets to discovery.
As I have said many times, we must exercise patience.
Judge Land just denied the TRO and dismissed the case.
And continue to. Judge Land in Georgia denied the TRO and dismissed the Rhodes case.
From this judge’s written opinion it is obvious that he is hostile toward the very suggestion that BHO might not be NBC, and never intended to let any “birther” case proceed.
Ping.
After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
While many others here are very critical of you, I do think you raise reasonable issues on many occasions. That said, it is all too common for judges who don't want to deal with the legal issues to simply say they are frivolous when there is actual merit.
I do not think the use of military plaintiffs in an attempt to prove Obama's ineligibility is the proper route to take. I think the California case is a much better one for this purpose; and I think it has a reasonable chance of success, especially now that Kreep is representing some of the plaintiffs.
I doubt the Rule 11 sanctions and imposition of costs would hold up on appeal since to support those sacntions, the court would pretty much have to prove the allegations were false, which is impossible to do without producing the actual long for birth certificate.
Still not one single hearing on the single contested fact: Obama is ineligible. The “Judge” punted.
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.