"I make him an offa he don't refuse"
That's what I thought as well.
Posted on 01/01/2010 6:27:46 AM PST by USALiberty
Folks, I often wondered what possessed Judge Carter in California to tell the world “he wanted to try this case on its merits” and then do a sudden 180 by dismissing the case with prejudice? Does the word “arrogance” come to mind? Did the justice system in California just reach the bottom of the barrel? The performance of Judge Carter was totally disgusting to watch.. Oh, and this whoop-ti-do you heard from folks that Carter would do the right thing because he is an EX-Marine.. what happened? Did honor and his oath get flushed on the way to the bench?
I went back and read some of Carter’s words and was stunned by his lack of knowledge of the Constitution or even a basic understanding of what is really going on here.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
“Here is the stunner.. the Judge is truly preaching to the liberal loonies when he made this statement:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office.
However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States.
Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
The Judge forgot to mention the fact that Obama committed FRAUD when taking office. Obama knowingly defrauded the public when he placed his name on the ballot and again when he the took the Oath of Office. Obama is a USURPER, not a legal President. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR, no man can serve or be elected to the Office of the Presidency unless he is a “natural born” citizen. The election is basically “null and void.”
Judge Carter can preach till he is blue in the face about Obama being sworn in and now it’s too late. NO SIR, it is never to late to convict Obama for election fraud, even treason. Obama can be removed just as quickly as he took office.
All it takes is a criminal prosecution and the Secret Service can march this lying sack of humanity right out of the White House into a 5×8 cell where he so prominently belongs.
Someone, not me, made him an offer that he couldn’t refuse.
And why was Robert Bauer’s associate assigned as Judge Carter’s clerk 5 days before the last hearing?
http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/RobertBauer.htm#TheFixIsIn
Great catch Star, IMHO someone got to him.
So tell me this: Could a liberal Clinton appointee to the District Court in California have decided that President Bush was not constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States in 2002 and unilaterally order him removed from office?
Judge Carter would say no. And Judge Carter would be (and was in this case) right. Judge Carter’s order respectfully considered the arguments raised and rejected them on the basis of law and precedent. To slander this judge by calling him drunk and not knowing what he was doing is something that reflects poorly on the attempts to get to the truth of Barack Obama’s true origins.
It was the Congress’ job and the State Board of Elections jobs to examine Obama’s constitutional qualifications. They refused to do their job in the 2008 elections. Some states might actually make him show his birth certificate the next time around. If the Republicans win the Senate or House of Representatives in 2010, they can issue subpoenas, and get to the bottom of where he was born.
Thus, it is important to have the right people put in the right place to do the right thing, investigate the facts, and impeach and/or prosecute if and when the proof of the fraud is obtained.
But please stop crying about a judge who did his job and followed the law. And if you can’t understand how his opinion was following the law, go back, reread it, and research the limitations on federal judicial power that Judge Carter so painstakingly explained.
Bingo.
Happy New Year Ping!
White washing and judicial “punting” before 4th down by a veteran Marine you would expect would defend and uphold the Constitution against an enemy “WITHIN,” unlike his fellow Marines defending our Constitution from battles overseas!!!
What happened is that he did the right thing, as a Marine should be expected . . . so Mr. Campbell is left to call him a drunk.
I respect the practice of (liberal) law about as much as I respect the practice of astrology.
That's what I thought as well.
USALiberty
Since Oct 6, 2009
Personally I think you guys are being played here. Shrill hysterical overkill.
How can Judge Carter look another Marine in the eye?
Which means that a fraud/crime had then been committed when the usurper submitted sworn applications to the partners involved and they then submitted sworn affidavits to SoS and others within DNC!
All this happened when the American people was kept in the darkness before the election!!
How do we deal immediately with such crimes, if not through courts???
DNC = Congress are in the majority, so the chain on the "football" field would NOT be moved forward even after the 1st down, regardless of the referee's demand to do so!!!
What;s your point???
Did anybody else see this? It came by e-mail?
*****************************************************
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency,the group “Americans for Freedom of Information”
has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry
Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court
order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for
foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, forthe scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,
Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spentupwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr.. Kreepindicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So, how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June, 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. . Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No... It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State
Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was
traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling
with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “naturalborn” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America , as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
It’s old, it’s fake, and you’ve been had again. Here’s a tip: Stop believing people who have little education and know nothing at all about the matters on which they pontificate. If you believe everything you hear, you are just like the airheads who support Obama.
Re ... What;s your point???
I like to post information related to the topic of the thread. Why does that offend you?
Because he didn't say that.
Does the word “arrogance” come to mind?
No, the words that come to mind are "crass stupidity" and "incompetence" and those can best be applied to Orly Taitz.
Your email falls apart right there. Pakistan was not and has never been on a State Department no-travel list.
"Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);"
The acceptance of an Indonesian passport is prima facie evidence for the relinquishment of US citizenship.
Very easily. IMHO, of course.
Can you point out how Indonesian law can supersede U.S. law?
The judge ruled correctly. If Obama committed fraud in gaining office then the remedy is to impeach him. The election has been certified and cannot be overturned, just as the 2000 election of Bush could not have been overturned if it were proved he was fraudulantly elected. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube it is hard to get it back in. Obama could possibly be prohibited from running again if he can be shown to be ineligible.
I find it both interesting and revealing that he was a recognized Kenyan during his Senate run yet now a Hawaiian.
What you failed to include is those acts must be performed as an adult. A minor child cannot relinquish U.S. citizenship and they cannot have it relinquished by someone on their behalf.
Also, had Obama been adopted by Soetoro then under the Indonesian law in effect at that time he was most likely too old to have Indonesian citizenship granted to him. He would have had to apply for naturalization when he became an adult. By that time he'd been living in the U.S. again for years.
IOW, “The King Can Do No Wrong” philosophy.
A minor child cannot relinquish U.S. citizenship and they cannot have it relinquished by someone on their behalf.Not true. You're confusing a situation where a minor is still living in the U.S.A with a minor who has permanently moved to a country outside of the U.S.A. It's xenophobic to assume a U.S. citizen would never renounce their citizenship to become a citizen of the country they are living in. Minors have as much right to pursue citizenship outside of the U.S. as an adult.
I think that’s one thing people fail to grasp. The Republic of Vanuatu could pass a law declaring every member of FR its citizens, and that would not mean we “relinquish” our original citizenships.
Excellent points. Carter is an outstanding judge.
Where was that mentioned???
Judge is an Ex-Marine. Former Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. I know a few Marines, and the “once a Marine, always a Marine” aura don’t seem to be all taht strong. And thoroughly-corrupt, Ex-Marine, Western-Pennsylania Congressman Murtha comes to mind, too.
I have a cousin who has taken the bait and sent this hoax to me at least four times , each with a new, different “tempting” headline.
The line above included in all versions so far is the dead giveaway that the story (even if it wasn't a hoax) is not current, as Obama’s first UK visit was near April Fool's day 2009 when the hoax story first appeared.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5080893/US-President-Barack-Obama-UK-visit-follows-weeks-of-meticulous-planning.html
I didn’t know that we are now using January 1at for April 1st fools and hoaxes???
I like your post 18 better!!!
No, but it would mean you relinquish your original citizenship if you subsequently apply for a Vanatuan passport.
If you live (permanently ?) in another country you have to follow that country’s laws, NOT U.S. laws!!!
I'm sure he'd be comfortable with Murtha.
Don’t step in the troll...
It seems to me that both extremes are wrong. No, Judge Carter can’t just remove a sitting president because some people—quite a lot of people, in fact—think that he is guilty of criminal fraud and never was constitutionally qualified to be President.
But, yes, Judge Carter has the right, it seems to me, to examine the evidence before him and, if the evidence is persuasive enough, to demand that Obama should prove that he is a Natural Born citizen. Was he born in Hawaii or not? Which hospital? He has never actually produced any evidence as to his birth, since the online COLB is a forgery AND he has never explicitly said that it is his COLB. Someone else put it out there, not Obama.
Ultimately, it would be for SCOTUS to resolve the question. But I see no reason why Judge Carter should not have acted—other than tremendous pressure on him not to.
In the headline.
Thus, it is important to have the right people put in the right place to do the right thing, investigate the facts, and impeach and/or prosecute if and when the proof of the fraud is obtained.
But please stop crying about a judge who did his job and followed the law. And if you can’t understand how his opinion was following the law, go back, reread it, and research the limitations on federal judicial power that Judge Carter so painstakingly explained.”
From what I have learned, you are correct in your post above. Judge Carter did follow the law and Leo Donofrio explained it very clearly on his website some time ago.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Once Obama was sworn into office, the process to remove him must be done through quo warranto proceedings. As we speak this process is in the works and I believe will be successful. God bless Leo Donofrio and Steve Pigeon for their actions to defend the rights of the Chrysler Dealers and to uphold our constitution as they work to take the proper actions to remove the usurper from our White House!
Case in point:
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No... It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
There was no such State Department listing. Pakistan was on a travel advisory list. It was dangerous for Americans, and especially for non-mohammedan Americans to travel there at that time.
The question still remains, why did anyone travel to Pakistan during a time of islamist fueled civil unrest?
For jihad, maybe?
They got something on him.
Thanks for the explanation.
Now that Obama has been sworn in, the case described above is a quo warranto, which Taitz even admitted. Judge Carter, per statute, has no jurisdiction over quo warranto, which can only be brought in the DC Circuit, if indeed it even applies to a POTUS (not yet determined by SCOTUS).
Fraud is criminal, but the case that Judge Carter had before him was civil, not criminal and there was no evidence meeting the FRE presented under the FRCP sufficient to justify a fraud trial in his court or criminal referral by the judge.
Judge Carter had to examine whether he had the right plaintiff in the right court with a cause of action that his court could remedy. Judge Carter decided that the cases, as presented by Kreep and Taitz for all plaintiffs required him to dismiss all the complaints.
As disappointing as this was to me personally, I believe Judge Carter acted well within the requirements of the law. Carter referred Taitz and Kreep to the DC Circuit for their quo warranto claim questioning Obama’s NBC status (dual citizen issue and birth location issue). The DC Circuit is the court that by Taitz and Kreep’s own admission was the correct court for that claim. Judge Carter can hardly be faulted for booting the case on this issue.
On the issue of whether the candidate plaintiffs such as Keyes, had standing to to challenge a winning but potentially ineligible candidate Obama prior to the inauguration, the facts before Judge Carter showed that Taitz and Kreep had failed to “perfect” their filing of the case on a timely basis, which includes failure to properly serve the defendants before the inauguration, which they did not.
Taitz and Kreep also failed to state a monetary claim that the court could actually remedy without violating constitutional separation of power to directly remove the POTUS.
Judge Carter's dismissal order was clarified to be “with prejudice” (don't come back) but Taitz and Kreep might still be able to file a new monetary damages claim in Judge Carter's court that was missing from the prior filing, but they could only do that for their candidate plaintiffs, not the military ones who were in the wrong court altogether.
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.