Posted on 10/06/2009 5:28:22 AM PDT by opentalk
As had been discussed on this blog, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Barnett v. Obama, hit its next major milestone with US District Judge David Carter making no new motions today except a promise to consider submissions from both sides and making known his concerns for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This was revealed in a transcript of sorts by the opposition forum site, Politijab.com, via the site NativeBornCitizen:
Barnett v. Obama – Report on 10-5 Hearing
(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...
Carter then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. He did not make a tentative ruling today. He wants to consider the arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.
He turned to plaintiffs and said, I’m most concerned about standing.
To the defendants he said, I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.
To the audience he said, your applause has not influenced me at all, one way or the other.
To Orly he said, apparently you’ve encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don’t help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won’t bear on my decision.
He then stated, obviously you’ve had no scheduling conference, but we’ll stick by the dates previously set for now.
He thanked everybody and the hearing ended. [emphases added]
Read more at link
Who in the hell does have "standing" if not every single taxpaying american citizen??? (Yes I did mean to include the qualifying 'taxpaying')
Amen! If the law as it stands is such that it's so difficult to find someone who has the standing to question Obama’s eligibility then it needs to be changed, STAT!
It is so frustrating to see the judicial system at work these days.
Standing my aunt fanny. He doesn’t seem to care about place of birth and in essence the US Constitution. Someone got to Carter so now he doesn’t want to hear this case.
It’s gone beyond a mere BC. Every day brings up more and more dirt on the usurper and every day that US judges refuse to hear the people the more obvious it should be to everyone that America has been taken over by evil doers.
Who in the hell does have "standing" if not every single taxpaying american citizen??? (Yes I did mean to include the qualifying 'taxpaying')
2 posted on October 06, 2009 8:31:29 AM by Mr. K (THIS ADMINISTRATION IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!!!!!)
*******
Who has "Standing"?
If anything ever comes out of this Obama eligibility mess, I wish that one of the first issues that is finally settled is this: State legislatures and congress finally come out in clear language and tell us who has standing in court cases, especially in cases where we the public want to challenge the eligibility of a political candidate.
That is, we the public should be able to go to court and demand that a political candidate prove that he is who he claims he is by at least providing his long form birth certificate for the public to examine.
So, please elected officials, could you finally write laws that will tell us who has standing and who does not?
Thanks. mirse
I’m with you- if every time we bring something to court they are going to say “nope- that’s not it” then OK- just who the hell DOES have standing?
TELL US
It cannot ONLY be the leaders of the democrap party, who put him up as a candidate.
And what about Pelosi’s signature on TWO DIFFERENT authorization forms? (times 50 states) Identical EXCEPT for one is with and one without the words “meets the qualifications as set forth by the constitution” (or similar words)
Not just one- but for ALL 50 STATES!!! ( she signed 100 ) all diffferent in the same manner
Alan Keyes is one of Taitz’ plaintiffs.
Not only was he on the presidential ballot in CA in 2008, he was Obama’s opponent in the 2004 US Senate race in IL.
If Obama proves not to even be a citizen, Keyes got the most votes of any qualified candidate for the US Senate, and was just robbed of five years sitting in that body.
The only person that could possibly have higher standing than that would be John McCain.
Not as though he would risk even a little ridicule to stand up for the simple provisions of the Constitution.
It is comforting to know he said that if he ruled against her on the basis of standing he would offer some advice on filing it again.
I think he’s an honest person who knows the law and has sworn to uphold it.
They don't need to. Standing is not a new concept, it's been around for a long time and the definition and requirements have been established by numerous court precedent. Link
It is not easy to establish standing to sue, nor should it be. There should be a real injury. There should be a clearly identified party liable for the injury. And it should be something that the court has the ability to make right. Birther cases tend to fail on the first and the third requirements.
As the defense has pointed out, Keyes was on the ballot in so few states that even had he won all of them he still would have been around 190 electoral votes short of victory. So to say that Obama robbed him of a chance to win the presidency is ridiculous.
If Obama proves not to even be a citizen, Keyes got the most votes of any qualified candidate for the US Senate, and was just robbed of five years sitting in that body.
Well, no. Had Obama been found to have been unqualified for the Senate then the seat would have been vacated and a replacement appointed by the governor who would serve until the next election. It's analogous to the 2000 Senate election in Missouri where Mel Carnahan beat John Ashcroft despite the fact that Carnahan had been killed 10 days before the election. Ashcroft didn't take the seat by default. Carnahan was still the winner in spite of being unable to serve and a replacement was appointed.
The only person that could possibly have higher standing than that would be John McCain.
McCain is about the only person to have standing period, as other courts have found. Particularly the Hollander v McCain ruling.
The defense is lying. With write-in qualified states, Keyes could have received well over half of the electoral votes.
You’re also wrong about Illinois. If the top vote-getter is disqualified, you have to award the election to the one who got the second most votes. Anything else would be a travesty.
McCain’s lack of concern for the Constitution is emblematic of his party’s lack of concern for the same.
This is probably a dumb question, but would it make more sense for a citizen to sue his state/elector, or possibly for the state to sue the fed/executive/etc?
An individual suing in civil court still has to show standing regardless of who the defendant is. I'm not sure about what the states would sue on.
That's like saying with write-in votes you could have won half the electoral votes. It may be technically true but logically it's still ridiculous.
You’re also wrong about Illinois. If the top vote-getter is disqualified, you have to award the election to the one who got the second most votes. Anything else would be a travesty.
Says who?
I was watching an interview with Barb Boxer last night.
She said McCain was very good on global warming and Cap + trade.
This being our most important issue, with a minor sideshow 17 percent real unemployment.
Good thing to know McCain is on top of this issue.
You must be joking.
As to the first, I don’t give a blue goose about anyone else, I can’t asleep, I have stomache upset, high blood pressure, aneurisms, hemorrhoids, and multiple henias all from just knowing that this crypto-commie usurper has cheated his way into the Presidency. If something isn’t done and soon, my life is at stake. Does that give me STANDING?
As for the third, the court has the ability to make it right by simply declaring that, as a matter of fact and law, the SOB is Constitutionally inelegible and his Presidency nullified. Then let the matter take its course through the legal system. The damage done by that process would be far far less thatn the damage doen by allowing the Constitution to be trampled while the whole world watches.
By the time it was over, because of their efforts, voters representing 357 electoral votes had the opportunity to cast their ballot for Alan Keyes.
Here's the final list:
Alabama – Write-in, automatic
Alaska – Write-in filed
Arizona – No
Arkansas – No
California – AIP on the ballot
Colorado – AIP on the ballot
Connecticut – No
D.C. – Write-in filed
Delaware – Write-in, automatic
Florida – AIP on the ballot
Georgia – No
Hawaii – No
Idaho – Write-in filed
Illinois – No
Indiana – No
Iowa – Write-in, automatic
Kansas – Write-in filed
Kentucky – Write-in filed
Louisiana – No
Maine – No
Maryland – Write-in filed
Massachusetts – No
Michigan – Write-in filed
Minnesota – Write-in filed
Mississippi – No
Missouri – No
Montana – No
Nebraska – Write-in filed
Nevada - No
New Hampshire – Write-in, automatic
New Jersey – Write-in, automatic
New Mexico - No
New York – Write-in filed
North Carolina – No
North Dakota – No
Ohio – Write-in filed
Oklahoma - No
Oregon – Write-in, automatic
Pennsylvania – Write-in, automatic
Rhode Island – Write-in, automatic
South Carolina - No
South Dakota – No
Tennessee – No
Texas – Write-in filed
Utah – Write-in filed
Vermont – Write-in, automatic
Virginia – Write-in filed
Washington – Write-in filed
West Virginia – No
Wisconsin – Write-in filed
Wyoming – Write-in, automatic
Total: 357
That is almost exactly two-thirds of the available electoral votes.
Judge Carter is remarkably uninformed on the definition of a “natural born citizen” and, incredibly, he seems to think that Congress can redefine Constitutional terms at will.
I hope he takes the time to educate himself just a bit.
And all that work netted exactly 47,926 votes. How many more you figure he would have gotten without Obama in the picture?
Nope. All are hypothetical or conjectural.
As for the third, the court has the ability to make it right by simply declaring that, as a matter of fact and law, the SOB is Constitutionally inelegible and his Presidency nullified.
In other words a writ of quo warrento. But nobody but the United States can file such a writ in any court except the D.C. court. Orly filed hers in California.
That response fits your name, in this context.
I read all 33 pages last night. I think that since Obama was never checked to ensure that he was a natural born citizen, then Carter should simply determine if it is REQUIRED for Obama to be a natural born citizen. Since Congress did not object to the votes, then Cater can say that the Congress failed to follow the rule of the Constitution and that they must address this deficiency.
Taitz should not expect Carter to remove Obama from power. Carter can leave that up to Congress. Carter just has to grant discovery and this whole thing is over for Obama. It doesn’t matter who Carter sides with after that.
It just seems to me that if they ask very little of Carter, he might be more inclined to grant discovery. Just a thought...
Agree.
“re: Who in the hell does have “standing””
If We the People haven’t got “standing” then we just need to go out and elect us a president for which we have standing...and tell the numnuts in DC to tel whomever THEY’RE representing to go pound sand!!!
The defense is lying. With write-in qualified states, Keyes could have received well over half of the electoral votes.
You’re also wrong about Illinois. If the top vote-getter is disqualified, you have to award the election to the one who got the second most votes. Anything else would be a travesty.
McCain’s lack of concern for the Constitution is emblematic of his party’s lack of concern for the same.
I read all 33 pages last night. I think that since Obama was never checked to ensure that he was a natural born citizen, then Carter should simply determine if it is REQUIRED for Obama to be a natural born citizen. Since Congress did not object to the votes, then Cater can say that the Congress failed to follow the rule of the Constitution and that they must address this deficiency.
Taitz should not expect Carter to remove Obama from power. Carter can leave that up to Congress. Carter just has to grant discovery and this whole thing is over for Obama. It doesn’t matter who Carter sides with after that.
It just seems to me that if they ask very little of Carter, he might be more inclined to grant discovery. Just a thought...
How many states is irrelevant. Keyes was on enough ballots to receive two-thirds of the possible electoral votes.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that Cheney failed to ask if there were any objections?
He is still bound by the law; he cannot just grant discovery for the purposes of helping the plaintiff prove their accusations. He will need some kind of evidence for the accusations before granting discovery; discovery is for the purposes of substantiating accusations, not for getting them off the ground.
What evidence has Orly offered? She had a good thing going with Lucas and the Kenyan certificate, until she scared him off.
Well, nobody else is going to give her a kenyan birth certificate with a decent chain of evidence behind it :-(
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that Cheney failed to ask if there were any objections?
How many states is irrelevant. Keyes was on enough ballots to receive two-thirds of the possible electoral votes.
Alan Keyes received 47,768 votes; listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California and he also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.
Good Point -- Judge Carter doesn't have to drive the truck to its destination. He just has to put it on the right road, in this case, the Road to Discovery that will put this back in Congress's lap.
Keyes had write-in status in a preponderance of states, far more than would be needed to win the electoral vote.
Lincoln won the presidency even though he did not appear on the ballots of all the states.
Is what happened to that once-proffered birth certificate avaailable on line? There seems to be confusion. There was posted a letter supposedly from Lucas Smith about withdrawing cooperation because of Taitz’ refusal to help with funding his effort. But where is the evidence that that actually happened and the proffered document and statement under penalty of perjury were withdrawn?
Is what happened to that once-proffered birth certificate avaailable on line? There seems to be confusion. There was posted a letter supposedly from Lucas Smith about withdrawing cooperation because of Taitz’ refusal to help with funding his effort. But where is the evidence that that actually happened and the proffered document and statement under penalty of perjury were withdrawn?
Keyes had write-in status in a preponderance of states, far more than would be needed to win the electoral vote.
Lincoln won the presidency even though he did not appear on the ballots of all the states.
This particular suit is complicated by the fact that Keyes has 43 co-plaintiffs and Obama has six co-defendants including Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
All that clutter makes the case look like a nuisance suit.
Except that he can't. A court has no power to order discovery in the abstract, or for the use of some other branch of government. A judge can order discovery only after he determines that there is a case within his court's jurisdiction in which the court has the power to award a remedy. The only remedy that can get a seated President out of office is impeachment, and that is in the hands of Congress, not the courts.
But he was on the ballots in more than enough states to win. Something Keyes was not.
You're simply wrong. Either you haven't read my posts to you on this subject today or you're playing ignorant and simply lying.
Voters representing two-thirds of the electors could have voted for Alan Keyes.
Who is talking about impeachment. We're talking about the XX Amendment and a President elect who has "failed to qualify" -- and that certainly is within the purview of the courts.
"Certainly"? The 20th Amendment doesn't say so, and neither does any court precedent I am aware of.
The 20th Amendment doesn't say no
I am talking on the physical ballot. Meeting the requirement in sufficient states to be placed on the ballot on election day. I'm not talking about write in votes. The fact that 31 people in Kansas wrote in Keyes out of the 1.25 million who cast votes is not an indicator of how valid a candidate Keyes was. It's an example of how big a joke his candidacy was. And the idea that Obama in any way hindered his chances to be president is absolutely ridiculous, and any claims of standing as a result is delusional.
None of which has a single thing to do with any relevant point.
Letter faxed to Judge Carter:
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
To: Judge David O Carter
Fax 714-338-4778 Terry Nafisi Court Clerk
Dear Court Clerk, Please see that Judge Carter receives this message.
RE: Keyes vs. Barry Obama
Dear Honorable Judge Carter,
Semper Fi, I just wanted you to know, although I am one lone voice, I represent the multitude of marines , who have come before, and are active now, giving their allegiance to up holding the sacred US Constitution, and peservation of this Great Country.
You are tasked with what seems an impossible mission, that is “To face your true allegiance to the US Constitution, and in full public view, under the enormous pressure, of risking your life (again) (but that’s what you have done and are used to, you’re a Marine) and the fate of the Constitution does indeed rest in your hands. ONE MANS DECISION, a MARINE, is he tuff enough? Man enough? Is Semper fi, just words for him?
I understand you are under a lot of pressure to do the right thing in this case, yet, you are a Marine tasked with a difficult mission (to do the right thing), as such, “tuck it up”, “Gung Ho”, it is what we are known for. “Semper fi”, if you can’t complete this mission and be faithful to our allegiance, then your tarnishing the multitudes of your brothers, and throwing away our great American Constitution. Many have given their lives for this Constitution? I understood you have put your life in harms way, for our Country in the past, I commend and thank you for that service, let it not be in vein, in your current life test.
Remember: No better friend, No worst Enemy : Second to None ; Honor -Valor- Fidelity:
First of the First : Fortes Fortuna Juvat : The Oldest The Proudest : Arm of Decision :
Ready to fight : More Than Duty : Ma Kau Kau : Others will follow where we lead
These are not just words, they are a way of life, Don’t make these words meaningless, we got your back, do what’s right,
We are tested in life, with challenges, to test our characters, to see if we are who we say we are, willing to do what we believe in. will you flee?, will you pass the buck, to another court? Will you wimp out? Will you cower before your enemy? I think not, you are a Marine (once a marine always a marine). I salute you Judge David O Carter, go with God’s Grace. Should you ever need assistance of any kind, you have a Brother in Hawaii.
Semper Fi
personal info deleted
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.