Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

WND ^ | 9/8/09 | staff

[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.

[Sibre Fan]

get real! You are spinning the record.

---

I did not spin the record. I said that the Judge found her actions "improper" and "objectionable."

The Order states:
"In this case, Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake allege that they should be relieved judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because their counsel acted contrary to their wishes in requesting a voluntary dismissal. Counsel Taitz refused to sign the substitution of attorney form presented to her by Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake. This action was improper because a client has the right to fire a lawyer at any time, with or without cause. Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784 (Cal. 1972). Counsel’s actions became even more objectionable when Counsel, apparently with full knowledge that Plaintiffs wished to remain in the present litigation with different counsel, chose to take further action on behalf of those clients and have them dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs’ Counsel should not let personal differences with the attorney who Plaintiffs desired to be her substitute further delay or interfere with these proceedings."

[mkjessup]

He (0bama) provided what he claims is evidence he was born in Hawaii, you call it a forgery.

It is a forgery and that has been established, whats more, you know that.

No law requires he do any more than he's done so far.

The Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen under Article II Section 1 and he has failed to meet that standard. Again, you know that and so does everyone else.

An unfortunate fact but a fact never the less and one that will continue unless changed at the federal or state level.

See my prior post, i.e. "the law is an ass" (and so are you).

The problem is that you refuse to believe him, and I've read the Constitution forwards and backwards any number of times and nothing in there states that the president must satisfy mkjessup's demands.

Your reading the Constitution 'forwards and backwards' is no different than the Devil quoting Scripture when it serves his purpose. And you're a proven liar, just like him.

There is a loophole in the law that no presidential candidate is required to prove his or her qualifications to any one person or agency. That's the unfortunate fact that we're currently facing. The solution is to close that loophole - probably by legislation at the state level since the Democrats control Congress. Why aren't you pushing for a solution instead of trying to twist existing laws to suit your desires?

The existing Law, the highest Law in the Land, is the Constitution, and Comrade 0bama has failed to obey it and has allowed forgeries to be submitted in his behalf in a failed attempt to establish his eligibility to serve as POTUS. He's paying lawyers hand over fist to conceal every bit of information possible regarding his origins, his past activities, and that demonstrates that his entire life is based on lies and falsehoods, something you too are familiar with, and proven right here in this thread.

And if the Kenyan Usurper is unable to establish his eligibility, then he must resign or be removed from Office by any means necessary.
I'll take that to mean any means, legal or illegal. That's where you and I part company.

We never were 'company' in the first place, you lying troll.

Your way of thinking does nothing except to empower and enable an illegal Usurper, aka one Barack Hussein 0bama.
And if you ignore the law in you haste to bring down someone you claim is ignoring the law, then where does that make you any better than him?

I am not at all ignoring the Law, and I will state right now that I AM better than Barack Hussein 0bama, because I have not attempted to usurp any federally elected office using forged documents, nor have I attempted to conceal the truth of my past history from the American people, so you better take that to the damn bank Sparkplug, I AM better than the Usurper.

You don't want the law upheld. You want your way regardless of what the law says.

Interesting projection you've got going on there. Tell us some more lies, we can use the cheap entertainment.

[Gene Eric]

>> He’s provided what he claims is evidence he was born in Hawaii, you call it a forgery. No law requires he do any more than he’s done so far.

Why would it be necessary to provide any evidence at all if the claim of legitimacy is paramount to concerns of criminality?

FWIW, I’m not a birther, nor an anti-birther - just lurking the issue.

[danamco]

There hasn't been another hearing until today so when was the second opportunity to toss it? Unless you count every time Taitz appears in court a chance to throw her case out?

Could it be that judge Carter is also a real "birther"???

[Non-Sequitur]

Why would it be necessary to provide any evidence at all if the claim of legitimacy is paramount to concerns of criminality?

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

[Sibre Fan]

Was FOX there? ------ According to AIPNews, a researcher from the Glenn Beck show was there. See Keyes v Obama Eligibility Update [from the federal courthouse, Sept. 8, 2009]

[Non-Sequitur]

It is a forgery and that has been established, whats more, you know that.

Oh nonsense. Forgery has not been established because nobody has actually seen the physical document.

The Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen under Article II Section 1 and he has failed to meet that standard. Again, you know that and so does everyone else.

According to you. Nowhere in the Constitution can I find the requirement that Obama satisfy your standard.

See my prior post, i.e. "the law is an ass" (and so are you).

Better an ass than an idiot.

The existing Law, the highest Law in the Land, is the Constitution, and Comrade 0bama has failed to obey it and has allowed forgeries to be submitted in his behalf in a failed attempt to establish his eligibility to serve as POTUS.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Once again, please point to where the Constitution requires your satisfaction. Or mine. Or anyone elses.

We never were 'company' in the first place, you lying troll.

The first thing you've said to date that we can agree on, you blithering jackass.

...I will state right now that I AM better than Barack Hussein 0bama...

Again, your opinion alone.

[danamco]

That is my very very liberal mother-in-law’s birthday!!!

[danamco]

The state-run-media including 98% of the radio talk show host are afraid of touching this with a 10’ pole!!!

[Non-Sequitur]

Could it be that judge Carter is also a real "birther"???

ROTFLMAO!!!! No, I think that Judge Carter is a solid, experienced, responsible jurist who will deal with the matter appropriately and in accordance with the law. In the end I may not agree with him, or you may not agree with him, but I have faith in his integrity.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is going to be a bench trial and a jury won’t be involved. Because Carter understands Taitz’ personality and has clearly indicated he is going to rule on the merits, I don’t see a problem other than delays caused by Taitz’ mistakes in procedures.

When was that established? Taitz has the right to a jury trial if she wants one.

[mkjessup]

It is a forgery and that has been established, whats more, you know that.
Oh nonsense. Forgery has not been established because nobody has actually seen the physical document.

The 'certificate' that was posted online was proven to be a forgery and it was posted with the blessings of the 0bama camp. That fact is inescapable, even for you.

The Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen under Article II Section 1 and he has failed to meet that standard. Again, you know that and so does everyone else.
According to you. Nowhere in the Constitution can I find the requirement that Obama satisfy your standard.

It's not my personal standard, it's the standard of the CONSTITUTION, what part of that don't you understand?

See my prior post, i.e. "the law is an ass" (and so are you)
. Better an ass than an idiot

Better an idiot than a LIAR, which is what you are, and it has been proven that is what you are.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Once again, please point to where the Constitution requires your satisfaction. Or mine. Or anyone elses.

Article II Section 1. The Constitution REQUIRES that the President be a natural born citizen and 0bama has failed to demonstrate that he is. You're only half-clever.

We never were 'company' in the first place, you lying troll.
The first thing you've said to date that we can agree on, you blithering jackass.

Better a jackass than a LIAR like you.

...I will state right now that I AM better than Barack Hussein 0bama...
Again, your opinion alone.

Proven fact. But sorry if insulting your idol has offended you.

On the other hand, I'm not sorry at all, offending trolls like you is a rare pleasure.

C'mon back liar, the day is young.

[mkjessup]

I think that Judge Carter is a solid, experienced, responsible jurist who will deal with the matter appropriately and in accordance with the law. In the end I may not agree with him, or you may not agree with him, but I have faith in his integrity.

And Judge Carter apparently isn't a liar. Try emulating him.

[SeattleBruce]

There is no SCOTUS case law because ther has never been a case like this in that court.
+++++++++++++++

I agree with you that there is no specific ruling by the SCOTUS re: the NBC definition of Article II of the US Constitution.

However, the SCOTUS have gone right up to the edge of the issue a number of times and clarified that those born in the US to US citizens are most surely NBC. See Minor v. Happersett just below: “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which may have influenced the drafters of the original constitution:[19] “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[20] The dissenters also noted that:

it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

[Freedom2specul8]

It is awful to watch this ongoing debate/drama and name calling. You are wasting valuable time and energy debating someone who clearly doesn’t want to agree with you. Why bother? A reasonable person (hint to ns) would agree to disagree and move on. It’s very apparent to me that Ya’ll are well intentioned, and want what everyone wants and expects— Proof of Citizenship. Please come back to *us* and ignore the dissenters. Just ignore them...

[danamco]

See post 133 !!!

[Non-Sequitur]

Obama's didn't get what they wanted, immediate dismissal. What motions did the Obamanoid lawyers get? LoL!

The U.S. Attorneys submitted a motion for dismissal just prior to the hearing. About the only people clueless enough to expect that to have been granted or denied right off the bat are you and pissant. Taitz has the right to respond to the defense's motion, which is why there will be another hearing on October 5th.

The fact is that other than the motion to dismiss, the defense had not filed any motions, only an order noting that the plaintiff had failed to effect service of process but saying that they would accept service on September 8th. I assume somewhere in that circus yesterday that was done.

Judge Carter was willing to work with it. Oh, and they have 4 months before trial to work things out.

Ah, but will they? Taitz seemed highly indignant that the judge would proceed with two sets of plaintiffs.

And there will be a trial because.... You don't read the tea leaves very well do you?

No, I read transcripts. And we'll see sometime on or shortly after October 5th whether there will be a trial or not.

[Non-Sequitur]

And Judge Carter apparently isn't a liar. Try emulating him.

Will you?

[BP2]

Now, now. You guys are being too harsh on old Non-Seq.

Non-Sequitur is only trying to earn his way into Liberal Nirvana, one post at a time.

Here's how he works:
Non-Sequitur wanders into a FR thread, lobs in the Holy Hand Grenade of Obfuscation, and hopes that no one will notice that while he feignly wraps himself in the cloak of “blind jurisprudence,” the real crime against the “Rule of Law” is being done by Barack Hussein Obama, the person Non-Seq almost never bears negative or critical words toward.

So, to assist you in your ascension, Non-Seq, I've written you an Invocation that you can use when opening the next Liberal bloggers meeting you attend:

(hands raised high in reverence)
"Oh, Mystical Pyramid of the Greenback, praise be to the pork package from Washington, using tax dollars that will come from our children's labors once they are old enough to join the workforce. Please bless the Benevolent One and deflect all legal inquiries as to true nature of His spawning. Also, bring the promise of ObamaCare, as well as more Greenbacks that will come from the fruits of our yet unborn grandchildren, so that we can enjoy another Stimulus today that could have been paid for by state and local government."

THAT about sums things up, doesn't it, Non-Sequitur?

The Truth shall set you free, not obfuscation, semantics or logic circles.

The Truth - try it - it really works ;)

[SeattleBruce]

Born on US soil is all it takes, by virtue of the fact that a native born citizen with a foreign parent is currently serving as President of the United States, sworn into office by the highest court in the land.

Don’t like my answer? Take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts. He seemed to have no objection towards personally administering the Oath of Office.
++++++++++++++++++

The SCOTUS has not ruled definitely on the topic. They have gone right up to the edges however. I think they most certainly NEED to rule on this topic now, for the future, if not for Obama’s case that’s been pressed in our faces due to recalcitrance of our government branches and political processes - in my opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts was going with the flow of the election and wasn’t going to, on his own, overturn the election by refusing to swear Obama in. Doing so would have required a great act of courage. If the court as a whole had decided to hear some sort of case before the electoral college vote, or before the inauguration, perhaps he would have then refused to swear Obama in. But he did not going to act solo on that matter. Thus bringing up the fact that he went along with the considered wisdom (such as it was) of all the US government officials, Democrat party officials, the lower courts, undefined SCOTUS law pertinent to NBC - does not address whether NBC NEEDS to be defined further by the SCOTUS.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which may have influenced the drafters of the original constitution:[19] “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[20] The dissenters also noted that:

it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.