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.

[Gene Eric]

You said:

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.

which suggests the claim alone is sufficient to block any inquiries of criminality. It is therefore pointless to provide evidence that could not be challenged let's say in the case of an alleged forgery.

Maybe I'm interpreting your statement out of context, but you seem to be saying the law doesn't care about the legitimacy of the claim.

[mkjessup]

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...

MHGinTN established that Non-Sequitur is a liar. That is not open for debate. That 0bama-enabling troll continues to twist, distort and spread falsehoods regarding this issue.

As long as that kind of trolling is going on, I will continue to call them on it and call them what they are.

The bottom line issue here is that 0bama has not proven that he is Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS. That is what this court case is all about. All 0bama has to do to end it, is to cough up the original documentation and instruct his legal team to fully cooperate with the plaintiffs in this and other cases and apply that 'transparency and openness' mantra he was prattling about in the campaign to his own personal records.

Unless and until 0bama is proven to be Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office he is currently occupying, he is NOT the President, he is an illegal usurper and his continued stonewalling is establishing that fact with each passing day, and with each passing day our Constitution is being p*ssed on by 0bama and his quisling-enablers, many of them right here on FR (yes I mean you Non-Sequitur).

[AmericanVictory]

How does the DOJ argument apply to a lawsuit brought by someone such as Colonel Hollister, which seeks to know if the One can give legitimate orders to call up the Individual Ready Reserve as opposed to the order coming from Biden if the One cannot give a legitiate order? How does having gotten away with fraud legitimate an order?

[mkjessup]

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

You're the liar, you're the one that needs to answer that question.

[SeaHawkFan]

Cases involving strictly questions of law are determined by a judge. Once Obama is forced to prove he is a natural born citizen, the facts will be established. Juries determine the facts of the case and apply those facts to the law.

In a criminal case, the jury, despite a judge telling them they have to apply the law as he gives it to them, have a constitutional right to determine if a law is just or if the application of the law in a particular case is just.

In short, Taitz does not have a right to a jury trial in this case. Besides, given the behavior and statements by Judge Carter, why would any intelligent person want a jury.

On top of all that, even if Taitz was entitled to a jury trial, she was required to demand it when she filed her initial complaint.

[mkjessup]

Excellent, you nailed that liar to the wall.

[SeattleBruce]

—Well, he was appointed by Clinton.

**Wellll now...that puts a new spin on things. Stay tuned...

##How so? Does it change Judge Carter’s record of convictions? The word spin is bull$hit with four letters.
++++++++++++

—The fact that Carter was appointed by Clinton, means that he passed at least a modicum of liberal tests. He may also have some loyalty to the Clintons. Would you not agree?

There are a lot of Clinton supporters who think that Obama is a usurper - and may not be Constitutionally qualified to hold office (not a natural born citizen visa vi his Kenyan father and dual citizenship issues - regardless of where he was born.) If Obama were born in Kenya, it just makes the whole Constitutionally unqualified issue that much more compelling, and it also seems to resonate more as an issue for his disqualification with the masses.

[AmericanVictory]

Why has the U. S. Attorney suddenly entered the Hollister case at the appellate level when only a private firm reprsented Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden at the trial level?

[SeattleBruce]

Voters accepted Barack Obama’s qualifications, as did Chief Justice Roberts, because no concrete evidence of the fraud had been presented in a manner sufficient to change their actions. Now, citizens are seeking to have the power of the court fix this mistake.
++++++++++++++

Exactly - the courts exist in part, for redress of grievances - this would just be the most massive redress ever.

[SeattleBruce]

So if this one is not airtight, they may just let is slide, because it won’t create the precedent law necessary?

[Sibre Fan]

The U.S. Attorneys submitted a motion for dismissal just prior to the hearing.

Correct. They also noticed that motion for hearing on October 5. In other words, when they filed the motion, they affirmatively showed that they did not expect it to be heard on September 8.

As I understand it, what the DOJ wanted yesterday - and did NOT get - was for the Court to issue an immediate stay of discovery pending the October 5 hearing. I think that the DOJ told the court that they will be filing a formal motion or application to stay discovery (pending the Oct. 5 hearing) on Friday.

[SeattleBruce]

Makes sense to me. My impression is that no judge likes to have his rulings overturned; whether ego or integrity, most judges want their very-public record to make them look good. A “serious jurist” wants, I imagine, the same thing, but is motivated by his sense of justice and respect for the law. Perhaps that is what we have in Judge Carter....
++++++++++++++++

And a good portion of the serious minded American Public continue to ask, why is Barack Obama going to such lengths to hide the most basic pieces of his past?

And why have so few cared (for instance the completely AWOL press corps?)

[Sibre Fan]

On top of all that, even if Taitz was entitled to a jury trial, she was required to demand it when she filed her initial complaint.

---

Taitz’s Amended Complaint says “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED,” so she DID do that. However, she appears to only seek declaratory judgment in the body of the complaint?

[SeattleBruce]

Why has the U. S. Attorney suddenly entered the Hollister case at the appellate level when only a private firm reprsented Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden at the trial level?
+++++++++++++++

So you and I are now paying for Bammy’s defense, donchaknow...

[Sibre Fan]

Why has the U. S. Attorney suddenly entered the Hollister case at the appellate level when only a private firm reprsented Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden at the trial level?

---

? The private firm (Perkins Coie) filed the Appellee’s Brief in the Hollister Appeal. Where is information that the US Attorney suddenly appeared?

[deport]

For info as regards to the motion filed by the US Attorney for the hearing scheduled on Oct. 5, 2009. To read the entire motion go the link provided.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.
Defendants.

No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx)
DATE: October 5, 2009
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
CTRM: 9D
Hon. David O. Carter

(1) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; AND
(2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

Motion

[SeattleBruce]

I guess it’s because Hollister’s case addresses the chain of command, but then why the private firm initially? In any case, we all know bammy will use the full force of his office to deflect, defend and in fact to act in egregious fashion, imho. This is the utter shame with having a socialist in our White House.

[Freedom2specul8]

Yes, I saw the proof of liar posts and do agree that eligibility has not been proven. Hasn’t the “argument” been going on for a year? Regardless, I just wanted to speak out against the fight. On a positive note, you guys gave a pretty darn good recap of the issue on this thread.

[AmericanVictory]

The U. S. Attorney did not file a motion to appear but his name is on the docket and he is signing the filings for the appellees.

[campaignPete R-CT]

BIRTHERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
The Obambi meltdown continues tonite, and it will be nationally televised .... details at eleven.

And, No, Obambi will not be allowed to suicide like his brother Allende.