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 ...
No; it means that he will consider it on the next day he hears motions. It was filed late last week and he said he hadn’t read it yet. He also said that such motions to dismissed are rarely granted. I think he was sending a message to Obama that he better get ready to turn over the birth certificate.
At the district court level, I doubt Clinton even knew/knows who he is. Besides, he was rather “preoccupied” during most of his presidency.
Not necessarily true in all cases. But Carter could have used the exact same BS logic as the other judges. Just like the DOJ urged him to do. Dismiss for lack of standing and/or jurisdiction
Stop. Facts only confuse him.
It IS true in all the cases you linked. And, no Carter couldn’t have issued that ruling or he would have been reversed on appeal. Instead, he’ll rule on it on October 5.
Orly has done well to get the case this far, but I am ELATED this other attorney has been allowed to represent his clients in this case.
Orly should dismiss everyone but Obama from the case. Hillary, Biden and Michelle Obama are distractions from the real issues.
“Personally, I think we are pretty damn calm for a Republic with a total cipher sitting at the wheel appointing czars faster than Sonia Sotomayor can eat an eclair...”
As soon as I stop laughing, I’m going to print this quote and hang it in my kitchen.
Orly has done well to get the case this far...
Nonsense. The very first link I gave you was based on a MTD. If Carter believes the horsecrap that you believe as stated in the DOJ’s filing, he can dismiss immediately.
Who’s the troll in the middle? Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!
He could have done that back in July because Taitz was so inept that she never properly served the defendant. But he didn't. He didn't dismiss today because Taitz is entitled to put together a reply to the motion to dismiss. He might well do it on October 5th, and if he does you will no doubt accuse him of bullshit logic.
But I keep saying Taitz. It's now the Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep show, isn't it? What a circus that was. Two different attorneys representing two different sets of plaintiffs in one trial, and neither one is on speaking terms with the other. A dismissal might be a blessing to them both.
CS has been full of BS. I’m sure he’ll congratulate Orly for her tenacity when Obama is finally forced to trial. Or more likely will be crying in his/her/its beer.
Bueller? Anyone...?
Thanks for the ping!
Nonsense. The very first link I gave you was based on a MTD.
In Hamblin, McCain filed a motion to dismiss on May 29. Hamblin filed his opposition on 6/12. McCain filed his reply on 6/19. Hamblin filed an opposition to McCain’s reply on 07/06.
Therefore, it is not a case where the judge acted on a motion to dismiss without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.
The other attorney is there because his two clients, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, sued to get out from Orly's representation. So you now have two attorneys representing different clients in the same suit, and they refuse to work together. Oh yes, something to be elated about by all means.
I just read the Court order and there is one part that stands out as NOT good at all.
Judge Carter has ordered that Magistrate Judge Nakazato will still be handling the matter of discovery.
The only hope is that Judge Carter expresses that he is dealing closely with Nakazato on this issue.
As posted by Sibre Fan the link to the Court Order:
http://ia301520.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.58.0.pdf
That would be as ludicrous as expecting integrity from either of you.
So you now have two attorneys representing different clients in the same suit, and they refuse to work together. Oh yes, something to be elated about by all means.
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.