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 ...
Answer: Because he can’t. Opposing counsel is allowed time to respond.
The judge didn't even read the motion to dismiss before the hearing on Tuesday. The onus will be on the defending lawyers based on the many statements in the hearing giving by judge Carter. And Orly should be confident the defendant's appeal will go nowhere.
He could have not even heard the hearing and summarily dismissed the case if he wanted to and set aside the usual procedures.
However, as you say, it would have giving Orly a good point in appeal, but knowing the 9th Circus of Appeals, they probably would have uphold the judge's dismissal.
BTW, it's always some newbie that comes to the aid of trolls on these threads.
The other question has to do with official court transcripts that NS has BS'd about in his posts.
You have no credibility on FR.
Among you and your friends you mean? I count that as a badge of honor.
Then why are you here? Your posts would be better received at the DailyKOS or at DU, illogical that that they are.
You’re like MurrayMom. FR’s liberal poster who JimRob keeps around form fun and loony opposition, except MurrayMom is honest to who she is. I suspect that’s the same reason why you are allowed to post on FR.
Why aren't you over there? I understand that they are very structured sites where no dissent is allowed. Sound like your kind of places.
It is Jim Robinson's site. He needs no advice from you or me on who he should let stay and who he should do away with.
As you know, not my type of dissent would be allowed, but yours would be well received...with open arms. You can sure pile the BS.
I didn’t give him any advice ninny since I didn’t ping him. I gave YOU my opinion.
Speaking of which, are you ready to tell us all why Judge Carter didn't immediately deny the defense motion to dismiss yesterday>?
I’m still waiting for the official transcript link...since you read transcripts.
I did sign up today.
Because I am fascinated by this issue and wanted to bring the perspective of an attorney.
I’m sorry if my knowledge of the judicial system is a problem.
So, your argument is that the judge could have ignored the law and dismissed the case, knowing that he would have been overturned on appeal. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
By granting the motion yesterday, the judge would have violated the plaintiffs’ rights.
(And, for the record, no attorney should ever be confident that anything is going to go their way. This is a miserable business).
The problem I have with this discussion is that a whole lot of laymen are throwing around terms and concepts that they don’t understand. (And it doesn’t help that Orly doesn’t seem to understand a lot of these concepts either. I mean, she asked to take a deposition during a preliminary hearing).
Not sure which or what transcript you are looking for as I’ve not read the up thread post. But here is a link to a court order Sept. 8, 2009 from Judge Carter’s courtroom as signed by Judge Carter. It’s at post number 632 and summarizes to some extent the events of the day:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2334872/posts?page=632#632
The judge could have granted the dismissal for Obama and left a huge whole in the case for the defendant to appeal. BUT I never said that would be very likely. Of course he would following procedure to allow for the opposition to respond. However, based on his comments, there never was any chance based on the judge's statements of that happening. He wants to rule on the merits of this case. If the judge denied the appeal to dismiss, the plaintiff wouldn't complain, which he could have on Tuesday. What's the defendant lawyer(s) going to say you didn't give my motion to appeal any credible judgment? Doubtful, he would give a judgmental reason and the case would go on.
Many here have mixed up the two scenarios or obfuscated.
Posted on http://AntiMullah.com - thanks
What?
First of all, what is an appeal to dismiss?
Secondly, the judge could not hace granted the motion to dismiss yesterday. It would violate the plaintiffs’ rights.
Finally, you do realize that there has been no ruling on the motion to dismiss, right? And the judge’s comments - while interesting - don’t really mean squat. Most motions to dismiss and, their counterparts of motions for summary judgment ARE denied. Because there is a strong burden in both. But occasionally, they are.
My gut tells me that this is one instance where the motion will be granted - though, as I said, I think the judge might be creative and go the political question route. But, we shall see.
(At their heart, I still think that all these birther lawsuits are little more than disguised taxpayer standing suits).
I really like that song,,,
The music is American..country...
The singer is a cute, American girl with a cheeky confidence American type personality...
If every there was a theme song for this travesty, this song would be it...
And the great American to sing it would naturally be this pretty lady...
:)
I meant 'motion to dismiss'. Although, I suspect you figured that out...
the motion the Obamanoid lawyers submitted to the court last Friday.
Secondly, the judge could not hace granted the motion to dismiss yesterday. It would violate the plaintiffs’ rights.
You ignored what I said. That would be [very] highly unlikely to happen. Like you said, it would come back on the judge in appeal.
And the judge’s comments - while interesting - don’t really mean squat. Most motions to dismiss and, their counterparts of motions for summary judgment ARE denied. Because there is a strong burden in both. But occasionally, they are.
Yes, I don't see much of a chance that Obama wins the motion to dismiss.
Oh, I differ. They do mean more than "squat". I'm sure the judge meant what he said at the hearing. Burden looks more on the defendant after what I read. Here's the probable "Motion to dismiss" put forth by Obama:
Obama lawyer. Oh judge oh judge, they don't have any standing!
Judge. Yes they do. Members of the Armed Forces have standing.
Obama lawyer. Oh judge, oh judge, this case brought by the plaintiff's is frivolous so throw it out. Judge so and so said it's been thoroughly Twittered and blogged! *snicker*
Judge. See my opinion about standing - their case is not frivolous.
Judge. motion to dismiss denied!!
The case moves on. They can take the issue up with the 9rd Circus when they eventually lose.
BTW, do you know Michael Michael?
Like your compadre NS will see.
(At their heart, I still think that all these birther lawsuits are little more than disguised taxpayer standing suits).
Disguised? So you're an after-birth'er.
9rd = 9th. For those who can’t figure it out.
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.