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 ...
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.
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.