Yeah, speaking of certifreaks, where is Rahm-Sequitor?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/24/2009 12:32:31 PM PDT by American Dream 246
In a move that has the Plantiffs "amazingly overjoyed," Judge David O. Carter has turned down the Government’s motion for Dismissal in the case of Barnett vs. Obama.
"This is a victory for democracy and the people of America," Rancho Santa Margarita-based attorney Orly Taitz said after this morning’s early meeting in the Judge’s offices.
"This means that, come January, the President of the United States will be forced to come into this same courtroom and explain his massive fraud to the American people."
Taitz represents Capt. Pamela Barnett and other military officers who question orders from the commander in chief, as well as Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes. She has tried similar lawsuits elsewhere, but has failed, most recently in Georgia, where U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land not only rejected the lawsuit Taitz filed, but then fined her $20,000 for filing a "frivolous" appeal.
Taitz is joined in this lawsuit by Ramona-based lawyer Gary G. Kreep, who unsuccessfully tried to sever his case from hers.
"I’m astounded, quite frankly," Kreep commented. "I really thought, after the last Court session, that we weren’t going to get this far. I guess I should have given Judge Carter more credit than I did."
The case revolves around whether Obama was born in the United States. In the previous hearing, in which the Government presented its Motion to Dismiss the case, Carter seemed skeptical that a courtroom was the appropriate place for such a matter to be decided.
Department of Justice attorneys Roger West and David DeJute had argued that only Congress can remove a president through impeachment. The only way the courts could be involved was to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over the impeachment trial.
Both West and DeJute refused to comment.
By WIRE SERVICES -- Story Published: Oct 23, 2009 at 8:50 PDT
This item is just breaking and I would consider it as "Not Verified." There are only a couple of sources on the Internet at the moment, and Taitz doesn't have a comment on her blog.
This really surprises me after reading the entire transcript from that dismissal hearing.... IF it is true.
Yeah, speaking of certifreaks, where is Rahm-Sequitor?
That's not surprising. At all.
Anyone with a brain who can’t see that Bozo is hiding something by refusing to show his BC has sh** for brains. The man is clearly NOT a natural born citizen or he would have proved it by now. There is no other explanation for hiring lawyers to try to get judges(and succeeding in most cases)to dismiss the law suits. He is hiding something and he is a chronic liar. He needs to be kicked out of office and if we had a legislature that was for the people instead of for themselves he would have been impeached by now for gross violations of the constitution.
FWIW:
Please, see the docket. There is nothing new in Barnett et al v Obama et al. Don’t pay attention to rumors and dirt circulating on the Internet. Remember who we are fighting.
Posted on | October 24, 2009 | No Comments
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5250
You are spot on. This is an embarrassment. Check Pacer or talk to a lawyer and find out how things are done. This has hoax all over it.
Exactly.....
The chief justice of the SCOTUS is a willing co-conspirator in this case.
The story is fake, but accurate.
Not true. Internet hoax known as a RickRoll. It’s a hoax intended to get you to YouTube where Rick Astley sings “Never Gonna Give You Up”—rickrolling is an internet craze.
It wouldn’t surprise me. Unfortunately, in my experience, people of virtue and good character in most areas of life are sometimes gullible. Because they themselves wouldn’t do such a thing, they don’t expect others to. That makes them easy targets for things like this.
Nearly all the widespread email hoaxes play upon the sensibilities of the conscientious. It may be time to stop allowing goodheartedness to be an excuse for a lack of discerment.
It speaks of a morning hearing. Does the docket show a hearing yesterday morning or this morning?
It speaks of a morning hearing. Does the docket show a hearing yesterday morning or this morning?
I have good sources, and they say this is completely fabricated.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/obamauniversal.html
Then, in a not-so-oblique reference to an unnamed Democratic opponent who’s refused to release her first lady documents from her husband’s presidential library, Obama announced that tomorrow he would be releasing for public scrutiny his long-held kindergarten papers.
“There’s some scandalous stuff in there,” he admitted. “I experimented with coloring outside the lines. Pulled a girl’s ponytail once. And liked it.”
So much for the ponytail vote.
he offered to release his K papers in 2007.
This is a fabrication.
I talked with one of the plaintiffs, and they say this is made up out of whole cloth. Thought you should know.
Beat me to it. The ink will have dried and the stamps minted and signatures forged. Still, makes you wonder why the murder of Quarrels Harris, of the passport looky-loo, hasn't been investigated and no one remembers Hussien from college. The place of birth is just the tip of the iceberg. One document can be forged but not his entire life.
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.