Posted on 09/08/2009 2:15:45 PM PDT by pissant
A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.
In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.
In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.
But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Good to see you found the thread. I was going to ping you today. :-)
Geez...a lawyer with “a habit of exaggerating the significance of routine court proceedings...” get me the press room! Hold page one!
+++++++++++++++++
While I don’t agree with all of WND’s blather - it sure is better than page ZERO with the Ministry of Propoganda, don’t you think?
This going get gooddd
It was submitted just last Friday and the plaiontiff is entitled to respond. Motions in U.S. district copurts must be filed and served on the opposition a certain number of days prior to being considered/heard. The exact number escapes my memory right now. Federal judges normally hear motions one or two days per month.
It weas filed just last week in order stretch out the case.
Yep...
Glenn has been a real turd when it comes to this subject, frankly.
_____________
he has, but so have ALL of the others. I think they want to run with it but they want some really concrete evidence first. I have no doubts that Beck would not mention it until he has made his case and has some verified facts to present. It’s very hard, as we all know because the o team has scrubbed and hidden things across the globe. They missed some things and that will bring him down eventually. If not now, it will in the 2012 primaries.
LOL! Been over this ground already w/afnamvet. See my post 149, his reply post 162. You need to vent your anger at ComeOnNow...seems to be the “troll-du jour.”
Careful FRiend with the use of “dismissed” in court proceedings, which means rejected, thrown out and not the every day one of concluded. (smile) Had me concerned for one moment that I had missed something bad.
I think that call Phantom Zonee
"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution's textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for president can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election,and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute. "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch."
Except that the full qualifications WERE NOT submitted to the public for scrutiny. Their whole argument is that since he managed to hide his documents from the people before the election, and the electors and Congress didn't challenge it, then tough shit.
I like Beck. But he is saying things that freepers and bloggers have been tuned into long before he was. But every voice helps.
It doesn’t make sense... if there is nothing to hide. It makes perfect sense if he is hiding something.
Cautious optimism...he’s hiding something...
There is no SCOTUS case law because ther has never been a case like this in that court. There are hundreds of quo warranto cases that are not all that substantially different from this one.
If you were to read the DoJ argument against the use of quo warranto in this instance, you would see they cited just one case that really has nothing to do with the facts of this case. All it did was cite that jurisdiction for quo warranto within the District of Columbia lies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In other words, the DoJ has no argument that quo warranto is not appropriate.
Appointed by clinton...
I knew I read that on a previous thread...I didn’t go back far enough.
With a pencil.
link isn’t working now. Was it working when you posted it?
It all goes back to the Jan 15?th day, at ?1:15pm where the Speaker of the House (pelousy) was supposed to ask if there were any evidence why not 0 should get the presidency?
And she moved so fast to ceremony that nobody was able to file an objection?
Bump Dat...
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.