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
Well, there's that, and all the twitter evidence. LOL!
Agreed. Carter's decision shirks his responsibility as a federal judge, according to the plain language of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution and the construction of it set forth by Chief Justice John Marshall. "The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." If this isn't a "case arising under the Constitution," it would be hard to conceive of any that is.
"Standing" is a judge-created concept used to dismiss otherwise worthy cases in order to (1) frequently protect government officials from litigation challenging their alleged abuse of power against the citizenry and (2) reduce the judiciary's case load. Even at that, it would be hard to conceive of a military officer, having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, to lack standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of his/her purported commander in chief.