Check out article and #15.
[Thanks, PennsylvaniaMom.]
.
Posted on 11/01/2009 9:41:05 AM PST by Seizethecarp
We’re not sure it’s exactly newsworthy anymore when a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s election on the grounds that he wasn’t born in the U.S. gets dismissed. (Though rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.)
But an opinion issued on Thursday dismissing one of these suits (this one, like others, brought by Orange County lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz) caught our attention.
The opinion issued on Thursday, by Santa Ana, Calif., federal judge David O. Carter (a Clinton appointee), delved deeply into standing problems he felt many plaintiffs in the suit suffered.
But in the suit dismissed on Thursday, Carter ruled that a group of plaintiffs could have standing: namely Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 election. Therefore, they may have been, theoretically speaking, harmed by an alleged fraud perpetrated by Obama in regard to his birthplace.
In regard to this group, Carter move on to another issue: separation of powers, finding that it is not within the constitutional power of the federal courts to “overthrow a sitting president.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Judge Carter's statement that quo warranto could be brought against Obama in the DC Circuit is not mentioned.
The many comments to this piece are interesting, too.
I am not a birther, but I find this angle interesting.
Liberals continually file lawsuits -— give them a taste of their own medicine.
Here is an interesting summation of the case from “Jack” in the comments, and a comment that appears to be from Orly herself:
4:30 pm October 30, 2009
Jack wrote:
.JUDGE CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly’s Candidate fraud case as well — all this on a red herring that Orly’s case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly’s actual case. Pretty nifty!!!
..
5:34 pm October 30, 2009
Dr Orly Taitz ESq wrote:
.Dear Mr. Jones
I am aware that you are not a fan of mine, but there are a number of Constitutional issues that I raised in this action, that were omitted in the opinion or misinterpreted. I hope you will show journalistic integrity more so then Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow and would give me an opportunity to present those issues to the readers of WSJ. You can reach me at 949-683-5411
Sincerely
Orly Taitz
.
The Law Suit needs to be Refocused! The Court should be requested to Find if in Fact OBOZO HUSSEIN BIN LADIN legitimately satisfies the Constitution’s Requirement that The Candidate and hence The PRESIDENT is a “NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN?” If the Said Individual is NOT Eligible, then So Be IT! and Let the Powers to Be Remedy The Situation... That would appear to be CONGRESS which is entrusted with the Powers to IMPEACH and Remove a Sitting PRESIDENT, Legitimate, Alleged or Otherwise!
A comment appears to be from Orly’s plaintiff Barnett:
7:28 pm October 30, 2009
P. Barnett wrote:
.I looked for many attorneys to represent us pro bono in Barnett v. Obama… Taitz is one of only a handful of attorneys in the country that puts love of the Constitution and our country above love of money.
So screw off all of you lazy liberal scum bag attorneys that only care about themselves.
AND THERE IS TONS OF FRAUD PROOF ON OBAMA (look at the docket through the PACER system), BUT THE DOJ IS RUN BY ERIC HOLDER - OBAMA’S LACKY. FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT COURT CASES, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT CARTER DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE FRAUD EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE DISMISSED the case for OTHER ISSUES.
Carter’s argument for dismissal is not keeping with the job of the judiciary branch of our form of government. The judiciary is required to hear cases brought to them on the merits according to Marshall.
Evidence Obama has produced to prove he is a natural born citizen - a fraudulent Hawaii COLB - see the PACER docket.
Signed, Disabled Veteran CPT Pamela Barnett
Is this poster referring to the after-the-fact ceremony that used the correct language? If so, was it intentional??
< reaching for the tin foil to cover my skull from the mind reading rays...>
Lucy, a Sunday afternoon ping.
This article is fascinating as it looks at it from another angle...and...(surprisingly) on the Wall Street Journal blog.
BTTT
Well, there's that, and all the twitter evidence. LOL!
placemarker
I’m reading the comments from the article you posted and it is no longer a question whether Obama has people on the payroll to troll the eligibility issue all over the web. They are scared sh!tless.
By the time even a little truth comes out, it’s gonna make Clinton’s impeachment look like small potatoes.
Yes, it is an interesting wrinkle that Orly’s suit was filed after Obama’s first botched swearing-in but before the private re-do the day after and Judge Carter seemed to rely entirely on the botched one without comment on the correcting one and any implictions of that.
It would seem that the 9th Circuit could reverse Judge Carter on this point, if it made a difference.
A remaining complication either way is that the DOJ was not conclusively served until August! This might make the botched inauguration moot.
This is already on the books in (of all places) Hawaii. Nancy Pelosi certified Obama as being eligible in Hawaii ONLY. In the other states, she certified Obama as the winner of the democrat party nomination, but excluded the point about eligibility.
Seems to me that the state position in charge of elections in each state (usually the secretary of state) should be personally responsible for verifying eligibility.
Nevertheless, the concern is what to do about the present situation.
This suit was not dismissed “with prejudice”. I believe that means Kreep and Taitz (hopefully just Kreep at this point) are not barred from bringing the suit back to Carter's court with the defects that Judge Carter identified corrected (dumping the non-political plaintiffs and all defendants except Obama, and not asking for removal of Obama but asking only monetary damages).
The WSJ Blogger Jones read Carter's at times confusing musings in dicta to mean that the political plaintiffs actually could have standing that Carter was willing to recognize if a remedy was available to the judge. The de facto removal of Obama requested by Kreep and Taitz was not seen as an available remedy, but a monetary judgment just might be!
Judge Carter seems to have actually invited a new lawsuit by the political plaintiffs!
How often have the anti-birthers and other scoffers declared that Taitz and Kreep would fail “just like all the others” because “none” of the plaintiffs had standing? Yet the WSJ legal blogger Jones says the anti-birthers and others are wrong. Judge Carter found that the political candidates could have standing if the case was timely filed and a remedy were available, according to Jones.
Finding standing for the political plaintiffs is huge!!!
This seems to have been the main sticking point in Judge Carter's opinion.
- There will be no discovery, because Keyes lacked standing
- Keyes lacked standing because THIS court lacked jurisdiction (NOT because ther was no injury)
- This court lacked jurisdiction because the case was filed after the swearing in ceremony.
but...
- the swearing in was repeated...the only reason to repeat it was because the first one was invalid (a point that could easily be made in court)...
Check out article and #15.
[Thanks, PennsylvaniaMom.]
.
rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.
Per Canedawg:
“And why is that?”
Maybe Jones just wants to reassure us that the White House War on Fox (WSJ is Murdock/FOX) will not intimidate the WSJ legal blog? As you point out, Jones doesn't explain why WSJ/FOX aren't taking the lead on investigating the vetting of Obama's NBC soil and blood eligibility, rather than just sitting around waiting for a case to "gain traction." Is it FCC threats that Beck is putting up on his chalkboard???
It's like the HI vital records. If there is nothing there, why are they here? If there is no standing, no remedy and no quo warranto, why the obsessive compulsive need to bat down the slightest shred of hope that there might be?
They say they are just trying to protect us from ourselves, but we know how that usually works out in real life.
You are welcome Lucy (thank YOU for all YOU do alerting us...and keeping things updated and explained.
I would suggest reading the comments pages as well...surprisingly there are quite a few posters who are questioning EVERYTHING!!!
We can do both, right?
Especially now that one judge has said political plaintiffs can have standing in his district possibly with a non-removal remedy (unless the 9th bats him down) so lawsuits can still play out.
We also have affirmation that at least one federal judge thinks quo warranto can be brought against POTUS, which the anti-bithers and lots of other legal folks said was impossible and only impeachment or the 25A was available.
I was working with a WSJ reporter on healthcare issues when Murdoch bought the paper. The fear was Murdoch wanted more tabloid type reporting. The reporters wanted more liberal reporting.
At the time in’07 WSJ appeared more liberal. Now I see all voices appearing. Especially in the opinion section.
12:35 am October 31, 2009
Jack wrote:
.CARTER DECISION FATAL FLAW: When all is said and done, ONE CLAIM MOST DEFINITELY SURVIVES, and that is Keyes’ claim for fraud committed by Candidate Obama before becoming President, which Judge Carter pretends away on the sole basis of Orly having filed same on 1/20/09 at an hour after Obama took the Oath. That’s a “red herring” because Obama took the valid Oath on 1/21/09, no Presidential immunity exists for tort fraud by Candidate Obama before becoming President, and “before-or-after” Oath filing by Orly is irrelevant for such case which does NOT seek Presdential removal, albeit Judge Carter pretends that IS the sole relief sought by Keyes.
FANTASTIC NEWS!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!
Hopefully, Everyone will take the time and efoort to read,
digest and fully understand your Great Analysis of Judge Carter’s Findings!!!!!!! HUGE!!!!
OBAMA IS A FRAUD AND THE ALLIGATORS ARE CLOSING IN!!
I am keeping an eye on certain legal blogs about the buzz on this.
Check out this lib one:
"-- Birther Queen/Attention Whore Orly Taitz serves as a bright shining example to those awaiting their bar results that all that anxiety was for naught. (i.e., if she's a member of the Bar, how did you ever doubt yourself?) Conversely, she'll pile on to the anxiety for those who don't quite make it this time around. (i.e., but SHE passed?) Someone should remind her: when a judge imposes sanctions sua sponte, that's usually not an indication that the judge is out to get you, but that you're THAT crazy (and yes, there is a line that can be crossed after which it's no longer about the legal arguments you put forth but you personally)."
Thank you, this article is really good so far. (Now to click on the link to read the rest)
I read the comments on the blog after the article.
Does anyone know anything about this Quo Warranto case?-
The ONLY way Obama is gonna “stall” this, (he’ll never stop it) is to regulate Internet Content. I really believe that is his next move. I pray to God that causes an uprising that makes HIM S&it his ugly pants. What a puke this b@astard is.!! CO
From what I read on Leo D’Onofrio’s blog, Strunk does not qualify as “an interested party” and is unfortunately more that a little full of himself.
I believe that Leo has found a legitimate “interested party” (a person personally “injured in fact” by Obama subsequent to Obama taking office) but can't yet disclose the details until his filing is made!
Well, the truth that Obama is NOT a NBC is finaly reaching critical mass.
The dynamics are changing!
The question people will now be asking is what to do about it?
I agree with Judge Carter on the importance of separation of powers in our Constitution... that the proper "remedy" -- in this case -- rests with congress to administer.
STE=Q
STE=Q
Thanks for the update. I knew Leo was working on something, but I didn't know what. The wheels of justice grind too slowly for me. We must get to the discovery phase before the 2010 elections.
Thanks for the update. I knew Leo was working on something, but I didn't know what. The wheels of justice grind too slowly for me. We must get to the discovery phase before the 2010 elections.
~~PING!
The analysis certainly seemed persuasive, but just as an added check, we called up Michael Small, a lawyer at Akin Gump in Los Angeles who last year taught a course at UCLA law on separation of powers.
Small explained that he “wasn’t surprised in the least” by the opinion.
“Any judge would have ruled this way,” he said. “I could imagine a judge enjoining a specific ruling issued by a president viewed as illegitimate, but not one ousting the president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And how is that Constitutionally/chronilogically feasible?? How can a president be “viewed as illegitimate” and NOT already be president at that occurrence ???
The word "illegitimate" in that sentence refers to a ruling (by the President) -- not to the President himself. In other words, he's saying it's not unusual for a court to strike down an executive ruling, but no court, due to separation of powers, would declare a President illegitimate. That power is Constitutionally delegated to Congress, once the President is sworn in.
When Carter refers to the timing of the filing, he means that relief could, conceivably, have been granted before the inauguration. That's why he scolds Taitz for not filing in a timely manner.
I agree that he did find standing for the third party candidates, but nowhere did he suggest that there's any relief the court could grant now, and even if that were possible Taitz would still have to present credible evidence, in a professional brief, for any judge to allow the case to go forward.
She's done neither of those things. Flinging fake African birth certificates, hundreds of pages of rambling, disconnected internet research and unsubstantiated charges of fraud at the court, then insisting that it's the courts responsibility to help her find evidence, is not a formula for success.
Okay .. strange that a ruling would be described
as illegitimate instead of unconstitutional; that
term is typically applied to the status of a person.
I agree. The wording is awkward and confusing.
Planned Fraud, which is still being carried on to the tune of 2 million dollars and growing. We will oust him at the ballot box if necessary, and this ammo WILL come in handy, especially if we have a certfied copy of the COLB. Thats all a court needs to do, order Obamas long form published, we won't need any other remedy.
And you know, if we do not de-elect Obama, what are the alternatives? The courts will have had their opportunity, and the people will enforce the constitution in their own way.
Its all good. Birthers are patriots. Wrong Siders? Well lets just say they are on the blue dress, wrong side of history.Poor confused little sheep, bleating their self importance into the darkening night.
Thanks for the ping, STAR.
Do we have any evidence that Obama ever stated, under oath, that he was a "natural-born" citizen? My recollection is that Obama never addressed the question directly - it was always done by surrogates. I would think that there must have been SOME form on which Obama stated, under penalty of perjury, he was eligible to be POTUS - but is there? Or have surrogates always "certified" him as eligible? To prove a tort fraud I would think you would need to provide concrete evidence that Obama in fact committed fraud.
“Do we have any evidence that Obama ever stated, under oath, that he was a “natural-born” citizen?”
See Arizona signed statement at this link:
That would make getting the documentation a mere matter of going to a local magistrate and getting a warrant for the records. The Hawaii department of Health is bound by Hawaii law to honor such a court order. Then The Messaih could be charged with a crime committed *before* he became de facto President.
Unfortuately the AG is the 'Rat successor to Janet Napalitono in that position. So that is not going to happen anytime before Hell Freezes Over.
Excellent Point
1. Re-file tort claim with Keyes or other political plaintiff asking only for narrow monetary remedy.
2. Quo Warranto in DC with qualified “interested party” which D’Onofrio and others appear to be preparing.
3. 9th Circuit or SCOTUS may reverse Carter on his ruling that once inaugurated even an ineligible usurper is not just de facto but also de jure president. The 9th or SCOTUS may not be willing to cede the power to rule on pre-election fraud of the judicial branch if they believe it belongs to them. 9th or SCOTUS may not agree that an ineligible fraudulent POTUS can only be removed by impeachment and may rule that an ineligible POTUS was never POTUS and can simply be replaced with VP under 25A.
4. 9th Circuit or SCOTUS may not agree with Judge Carter's page 22 footnote where he claims that Vattel, Jay and Bingham _alone_ aren't sufficient to overcome the history of congressional legislation defining citizenship and naturalization. Carter appears to be conflating the definition and rights of citizens (whether born or naturalized) with the constitutional requirement that POTUS candidates meet a totally separate and distinct requirement at birth of having two US citizen parents having nothing to do with otherwise equal rights of citizens. Ark clearly distinguishes 14A citizens from NBC and Minor affirms there is no doubt regarding two citizen parents.
5. 9th or SCOTUS may reject Judge Carter's attempt to pre-judge the veracity of HI birth records compared to Kenya birth records without allowing discovery to go forward. For Judge Carter to rule for the MTD, he had to find that “even if the allegation of the plaintiffs were true” they could not prevail. Carter unfairly disadvantaged plaintiffs IMHO by claiming that even if Lucas Smith's Kenya BC were validated it couldn't overcome a validated HI BC.
Carter presumes to know the outcome of the discovery that the plaintiffs are requesting. The 9th or SCOTUS could reverse Carter on this if they thought there was a remedy of removal of an ineligible usurper that didn't require impeachment because the usurper was never POTUS.
Here is Leo D’Onofrio’s comment on whether Obama committed fraud when he signed an NBC eligibility statement in AZ (Leo’s is “Ed.” for editor):
Follow the Constitution Says:
October 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“”Failure to be eligible is not a crime, but it is does give rise to removal of a sitting President.””
Yes, but committing FRAUD is a crime! He frauded the people knowing he was not eligible and the mere fact he spent over a million bucks to keep his records sealed, even before the election, shows his intent to fraud the people over his eligibility.
[ed. It was fraud to swear he was eligible in Arizona, but it was not fraud for him to believe he was eligible and to run. It’s possible that he honestly believes he was eligible, and it’s possible the Supreme Court will back him up. IT was not possible that he could swear he was eligible only that he believed himself to be eligible. So in Arizona, he appears guilty of perjury.
But he is not guilty of intent to defraud the nation in general by running unless he truly believed he was not eligible and I don’t think you can meet that standard unless he was born abroad. I do not believe he was born abroad. And I have not seen any reliable proof to establish that he was.]
Check out #47 and #48.
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.