Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KEYES v OBAMA OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case ; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Scribd ^ | September 21, 2009 | Orly Taitz

Posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:47 PM PDT by Red Steel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 last
To: Lurking Libertarian
Nice company Orly is keeping.

That's her MO, isn't it?

She gives interviews, freely, to sites like TMP Muckraker, who portray her as the clown queen of the Repulican "rightwingers.

She willingly" appears on MSNBC, who rip her to shreds as a deranged "rightwing" nutjob.

When are people -- meaning those people who aren't intentionally sabotaging the right -- going to wise up about Taitz?

151 posted on 09/22/2009 1:04:08 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: jarofants
The previous posters that responded to your post appear to "have forgotten" to mentioned this large salient point.

Page 2. "Idem: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. "

Cheney either forgot or intentionally missed to query Congress if they had any objections to Barack Obama becoming president. Cheney failed in his ministerial duties as prescribed by "3 United States Code §15." The omission by Cheney may come back to bite Obama in his @$$ since...

The thrust of Obama's and the government's Motion to Dismiss is that Congress and the Electoral process are the ones who vet presidential candidates and no one else. The government stepped in it here. As pointed out that they failed to follow procedure.

In the Governments Motion to Dismiss, they conveniently omitted the following passage as it is written statute 3 U.S.C. §15:

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof… "

Cheney left a big hole that may increase to the size of Meteor Crater, AZ in the governments argument, so conveniently not explained to you.

152 posted on 09/22/2009 1:19:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Thanks Tru man Dog Z.

Well lets hope all the offense does not leak the defense.

As Slim and Cinnamon Sue sing the old Cow range songs....

Dont Rope Me in.
IOW Play the poker hand well and win with honesty and integrity.


153 posted on 09/22/2009 1:30:00 PM PDT by Global2010 (Strange We Can Believe In)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; jarofants
The previous posters that responded to your post appear to "have forgotten" to mentioned this large salient point.

(citing from the Brief): Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. "


Not exactly. But I suspect that the DOJ would have the court believe (and, thus, hold, rule, and/or accept) that
(a) the enabling statute requires any objections to be submitted in writing; and yet
(b) any such written objection would have been made part of the official Congressional Record; and,
(c) no Representative or Senator called for a point of order in order to properly lodge their objection; and
(d) no Representative or Senator has filed suit claiming that they filed (or wished to file but were prevented from doing so) a written objection that was not properly considered by the Vice President and/or Congress;

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Constitution was not followed in this respect.

Now, if Taitz (or any other lawyer pursuing the eligibility actions) could find even just one single representative or senator who could affirm that the Rep/Senator was not permitted to file an objection, that person would have standing to sue, and the case would be proceeding post haste.
154 posted on 09/22/2009 1:31:34 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Mik Taerg

It’s exactly the same as the other one.

Are you referring to some invisible ink that has to be passed over a candle to read?


155 posted on 09/22/2009 1:35:08 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Duh, is that what he did. The link and the “BC” he posted were exactly the same and I wondered what the deal was, including the bogus birth place.

I think I need more caffiene.


156 posted on 09/22/2009 1:37:47 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
I suspect Orly and her associate lawyers disagree with you here. The President of the Senate has to call for objections for which he did not. This country has been kowtowed by PC'ness and Obama, as has Congressional members. Because no Congress critter didn't file a written objection doesn't mean there were not any.

There was an Ohio member of Congress who did raise his hand as he was about to object, but Cheney ignored him as he ignored to ask Congress for objections.

Now, if Taitz (or any other lawyer pursuing the eligibility actions) could find even just one single representative or senator who could affirm that the Rep/Senator was not permitted to file an objection, that person would have standing to sue, and the case would be proceeding post haste.

Who knows, this case may lead to that.

157 posted on 09/22/2009 1:43:17 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Cheney left a big hole that may increase to the size of Meteor Crater, AZ in the governments argument, so conveniently not explained to you.

Gary Kreep had an entirely different argument in his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed on 9/18.

His argument is that the Electoral College "lacks the power to make eligibility determinations." IOW, it has an essentially "ministerial" (i.e. clerical) function of counting the electoral votes, and any objections would be to the correct tallying/casting of votes -- not to qualifications of the those voted for.

It's an interesting interpretation, and worth reading. Here.

158 posted on 09/22/2009 1:56:31 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I suspect Orly and her associate lawyers disagree with you here.
Are you aware of who is authoring the briefs according to the document properties filed with the court (and, with some, according to the author's statements made on talk radio)? Not lawyers.

This country has been Kowtowed by PC'ness and Obama, as has Congressional members.
The idea that Cheney is kowtowed by Obots is a rather striking idea.

Because no Congress critter didn't file a written objection doesn't mean there were not any.
If they didn't file a written objection, they didn't properly object. You can't say I objected, but I failed to follow the required procedure to make the objection, but my objection should have been heard anyway.

There was an Ohio member of Congress who did raise his hand as he was about to object, but Cheney ignored him as he ignored to ask Congress for objections.
How do we know that he was about to object? If he was, where's he BEEN for the past nine months? He was identified (on Orly's blog) on January 31. If he was trying to object, and if he had followed the rules regarding his objection, then HE has a potential claim. Others cannot assert the claim on his behalf, but he has a claim. Where is he? If he is "kowtowing" to PC-ness, then he should be challenged on this.
159 posted on 09/22/2009 2:27:50 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Gary Kreep had an entirely different argument in his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed on 9/18.

And that's good thing! Judge Carter has already said that he can and will consider different - even contradictory - arguments. So the more varied arguments that can get in front of the Judge, the better the chance is that plaintiffs could defeat the motion to dismiss.

Which makes Taitz' stated plan to move to disqualify Kreep incomprehensible.
160 posted on 09/22/2009 2:40:00 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
LEo point out how the DOJ lawyers gave Orly a big opening.

Not any more. No discovery is allowed until after the motion to dismiss is ruled on.

161 posted on 09/22/2009 3:06:50 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Indeed. The certificate provided by Smith (presumably unaltered) can be found over at American Grand Jury (here). The new FReeper is probably just a troll. But, perhaps, he's been called here for knowledge and new perspective ... I can hope. Good to cross threads with you again -- it's been a while.


162 posted on 09/22/2009 3:10:57 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Stop trolling. I never said before the motion to dismiss is decided. Do try to keep up ACORN employee.


163 posted on 09/22/2009 3:16:12 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's healthcare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Stop trolling. I never said before the motion to dismiss is decided. Do try to keep up ACORN employee.

Then what does Leo's asinine theory have to do with anything current?

164 posted on 09/22/2009 3:18:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

Maybe Leo has a good reason to keep documents quiet. Making everything public right away can be a bad strategy. This is especially true when you are looking for more documents. She needs to concentrate on her cases and avoid criticizing what Leo and Gary Kreep are doing.


165 posted on 09/22/2009 3:27:18 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's healthcare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Maybe Leo has a good reason to keep documents quiet.

From what he's posted, there aren't any documents -- just an idea of how to, with some luck, obtain information and/or documents, based on the law and the statements made by the HI Dept. of Health.

166 posted on 09/22/2009 3:43:20 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

That was a general advisory and in no way meant to single you out.


167 posted on 09/22/2009 3:50:38 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: browardchad; Frantzie
(Frantzie): Maybe Leo has a good reason to keep documents quiet.
(BrowardChad): From what he's posted, there aren't any documents


The relevant documents appear to have been linked here for some time. You can read MissTickly's saga here, and here, for example, and she's posted her evidence a few places, including here.

Maybe there's some new stuff not mentioned in her various posts, but, this seems to be consistent with what Leo is saying.
168 posted on 09/22/2009 4:04:18 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Thanks - I’m not a complete idiot, there are still some parts missing...

;-)


169 posted on 09/22/2009 4:13:27 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

No problem, jefe.


170 posted on 09/22/2009 4:39:13 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (We're right! We're free! And we'll fight! And you'll seeeeeeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mik Taerg; Admin Moderator

Can you source that document image?

Or did you just register here a week ago to troll?


171 posted on 09/22/2009 5:33:30 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Chysler dealers are exactly the sort of plaintiff Leo has said would be perfect for a quo warranto action because they have a personal “injury-in-fact” attributable to Obama.

Leo, while initiating a suit against HI vital statistics, still is asserting that Orly's Keyes case will be dismissed for lack of properly stated claim and lack of standing.

Today I suggested to Leo that Judge Carter seems to have actually bent over backwards to recognize and articulate Orly's key claims that Obama is not NBC, was born in Kenya and may still be an Indonesian citizen, but Leo wasn't buying it. Leo still expects Orly's case to be dismissed.

Here is my post to Leo and his editorial comments as “Ed.” included:

Seizethecarp Says:
September 22, 2009 at 11:26 am

Leo:

Your current effort to obtain from HI any requests to amend Obama’s vital records are fascinating, but could be mooted by Judge Carter on Oct. 5.

[Ed. They can't be mooted. Judge Carter has no jurisdiction of Hawaii UIPA requests.]

Your following comment about Orlys’ case has been affirmed by nearly every lawyer on the blogs that I have read:

“The underlying case is a loser. The pleadings ramble and they don’t do what pleadings are supposed to do…which is simply make a claim. The pleadings here are used to try the case and they contain so many things the court must ignore and they ignore many things the court must have before it. The plaintiffs have no standing so no pleadings can fix that.”

However, despite these shortcomings, somehow Judge Carter has managed to describe Orly’s case in a clear articulation of claims regarding both the constitutional question of law as to the meaning of “natural born” citizen and the fact question of whether Obama was born in Kenya.

Judge Carter said:

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY

“On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging, in pertinent part, that President Barack Obama (“the President”) does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, §1, cl. 5 of the United States Constitution. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, and not Hawaii, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that the President was a citizen of Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States Citizenship.”

[Ed. Isn't it fascinating that Judge Carter does not address the core issue in this paragraph. Judge Carter discusses Obama’s BC issues - place of birth, he discusses Indonesia, but the one FACT which is not disputed but is rather admitted by Obama - that at birth he was governed by Great Britain as a British citizen - that fact and its relevance to nbc status is ignored by Judge Carter.

I told you, they failed to properly plead that issue and the Judge is throwing a sign that he is not considering that issue because it's not included in his summary.]

I take from this that Judge Carter is cutting Orly slack to which she may not be entitled, but to which the country and the Constitution are entitled, unlike Judge Land, Judge Robinson or even SCOTUS when they declined to hear your case.

Judge Carter has also made repeated statements in open court that indicate that while he will hear the Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 5 with a judicially proper open mind, he is inclined to hear the case on the merits. This can only mean that Judge Carter, and perhaps Judge Carter alone sees at least one of Orly and/or Kreep’s plaintiffs as having standing sufficient to justify discovery regarding the claims he was able to articulate for Orly and he sees a remedy.

But which plaintiff could Judge Carter be regarding as having standing? You have stated that Keyes has no standing because had no chance of winning:

[Ed. You know... if you're not going to be honest and admit Keyes had no chance of winning... then I can't really help you. Maybe another blog is what you are looking for.]

I fully agree with your assessment of Keyes prospects, but it does seen unfair to any eligible candidate regardless of prospects to have an ineligible candidate dilute possible incremental career benefits of placing higher in a smaller field, not to mention having the ineligible candidate win!
Were you relying on the following analysis by Tokaji and his reference to the Fulani case in concluding that Keyes has no standing?

Tokaji:

“The plaintiff in Robinson, a would-be elector for a minor party candidate, has a somewhat stronger claim of injury than the plaintiffs in the other cases. But while his interest may be somewhat stronger than that of other members of the public, such a plaintiff still has a serious Article III standing problem. The chances of the candidate winning any electors from any state—whether or not McCain is in the race—are exceedingly remote. On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing. There is also a Seventh Circuit case, Fulani v. Hogsett, in which a minor-party presidential candidate was held to have standing to challenge the certification of both major parties’ 1988 presidential candidates. In that case, however, the court found that the minor party candidate “could conceivably have won the Indiana election” if she obtained the relief sought. By contrast, Robinson’s preferred candidate Alan Keyes is exceedingly unlikely to win any electoral votes in California, even if McCain were disqualified. Robinson’s claim of injury is thus too speculative and insufficiently imminent to satisfy Article III, as the district court correctly concluded.”

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm

While Tokaji agrees with you regarding Keyes, Tokaji does say in that passage:

“On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing.”

[Ed. I was more inclined to be going under the Newman holding from SCOTUS.]

Perhaps it is in these “on occasion” cases that Judge Carter has found room to consider Keyes to have standing, and perhaps the fact that Carter is in the Ninth Circuit, not the Seventh Circuit might give him some additional latitude.

Regardless of the prospects of Orly’s case on appeal for the reasons you have cited, if Judge Carter orders discovery of Obama’s vital records in HI on Oct. 5 and Obama’s HI birth is confirmed to have been witnessed in a hospital by an MD, then way will be clear for the public to focus on the quo warranto NBC issue, correct?

[ed. True... but if the case is dismissed it may appear as if the nbc issue was dismissed with it. Not accurate. The issue wasn't properly plead and is not technically before the court in my opinion. We shall see if he goes to it.]

172 posted on 09/22/2009 8:04:21 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: jarofants
To be more clear here. Cheney did violated in accordance with title TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1 § 15.

Cheney, President of the Senate, failed in his task to ask for objections during the joint secession of Congress after reading "all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates [votes] of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented." If there were objections from any tandem of Congressman and Senator, the next step is for them to put their objections in writing. This is the correct procedure in accordance with the statute above.

It is besides the point that objections, if any, were not presented before or after the joint session of Congress. Cheney failed to do as prescribed by law. For Taitz to not enlighten judge Carter about the violation by the Senate President, would be negligence on her part to her Plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, Taitz has made it an important part of here opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss by arguing it upfront on page 2 of her filing.

We will see on October 5th this or any other parts of her filing hold sway with judge Carter. No one here really knows for sure how this all is going to turn out.

From TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1 § 15:

-snip-

"...Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received...."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html

-end snip-

First, as you plainly see, Cheney should have complied with by calling congressman -"shall call" - for their objections.

And second, after he called on Congress to verbally object, put their objections in writing.

173 posted on 09/22/2009 8:20:57 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I wouldn’t know where to start to document it, but it has occurred to me that the payment process for the cash for clunkers debacle may also be ‘steered’ by whom has been donating more to Republicans than to Democrats ... what better wya to put the dealerships into a disasterous financial pinch than to withhold beyond thirty day carry over the reimbursements to Republican fdonars, while expediting the payments to democrat donors? The criminal democrats pulled a blatant criminal act in tow parts when they selected Republican donors to close in the Chrysler illegal forced closings, then transferred stock and parts to democrat donor dealerships. Why would they miss this subtle way to squeeze Republican donors even more, and in all brand categories? The entire cash for clunkers fiasco was aimed solely at getting stored units off of lots so union worker would have work while the nation is tanking, economically. And it did that quite nicely for the criminal union thugs the obamanoid administration needs to squeeze the populace at the chosen times.


174 posted on 09/22/2009 8:25:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
And what rule do you think was violated?
175 posted on 09/22/2009 8:50:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Standing among Chrysler dealers who donated to Republicans or were located in conservative districts that Obama’s Car Czar targeted for closer? A possible way to get to Obama.


176 posted on 09/22/2009 9:07:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Are you aware of who is authoring the briefs according to the document properties filed with the court (and, with some, according to the author's statements made on talk radio)? Not lawyers.

So you know for a fact that Taitz consults with no lawyers - ever? That would not pass the smell test.

The idea that Cheney is kowtowed by Obots is a rather striking idea.

No not Cheney. Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law. Society in general, to include Congress, has cowed in the face of being painted as "racist" or some other nonsense where none really exist - which is used as a political tactic by the left and Obama. You see it everyday from Jimmy Carter to Eric Holder who have playing the BS race card. Furthermore, Obama like clockwork, used the race card on or about every two weeks during his campaign from Spring to Fall of last year. Yeah, I can see why Congress critters who may have had objections to Obama may have ate their words when it was time to speak up.

If they didn't file a written objection, they didn't properly object. You can't say I objected, but I failed to follow the required procedure to make the objection, but my objection should have been heard anyway.

Cheney failed in his duties to follow the statute to "call" on Congress no matter if there were any objections or not. First, Cheney should have called for objections, then the written objections would follow - if any.

How do we know that he was about to object? If he was, where's he BEEN for the past nine months? He was identified (on Orly's blog) on January 31. If he was trying to object, and if he had followed the rules regarding his objection, then HE has a potential claim. Others cannot assert the claim on his behalf, but he has a claim. Where is he? If he is "kowtowing" to PC-ness, then he should be challenged on this.

We don't for sure, He possibly changed his mind because of the withering leftist BS for objecting he would have faced for doing so. Many FReepers here who saw his hand raised thought he raised his hand in objection, Cheney didn't give him a chance at the time now did he? Again, the point is Cheney did not follow the law, therefore, it's an opening for the plaintiff to point this out to the judge no matter what Cheney's reason for not doing so.

177 posted on 09/22/2009 10:06:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The criminal closure of Chrysler dealerships was but one of at least four things this bastard has done since taking office which, were it not for the criminal enterprised democrat party holding the House and Seante, rise to the level of high crimes warranting impeachment and removal, followed by trial and imprisonment. Sadly for America, democrat voters as well as the criminals they usher into power are corrupted beytond redemption. And the GOP is not far behind them in their perfidy.


178 posted on 09/22/2009 10:21:12 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

obumpa


179 posted on 09/22/2009 11:11:14 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
She needs to concentrate on her cases and avoid criticizing what Leo and Gary Kreep are doing.

Especially since Gary Kreep IS part of her case, whether she likes it or not.

180 posted on 09/23/2009 8:04:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
And second, after he called on Congress to verbally object, put their objections in writing.

I believe the law states that the objections must be made in writing, signed by at least one member from each House. Where any such objections submitted?

181 posted on 09/23/2009 8:07:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The Chrysler dealers should get with Leo to write up a quo warranto action.


182 posted on 09/23/2009 8:23:00 AM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's healthcare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law. 

In its motion to dismiss, the  defense argued that the "The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process."

We know, though, in practice, the electors are political hacks appointed as electors by their party in reward for their support. Theirs has become, in practice, a ceremonial role (and some of  them might not even be alive, as was the case with one in California).

If you look at Kreef's argument in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss,  Cheney's oversight becomes insignificant.

...the Electoral College is not empowered with the authority to determine the eligibility of any candidate. As discussed above, in twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority, so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. The assertion of Defendants that the Electoral College has the authority to make any determination of a Presidential candidate’s qualifications is unpersuasive because, while the historical intent of the of the Electoral College was to make such determinations, the modern majority trend of the States is to limit the duties of the Electors to the ministerial role of casting a vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote of their respective States.

Further, other than a Concurring Opinion, Defendants offer no modern precedent for the claimed power of the Electoral College. Thus, the Electoral College lacks the authority to make a determination of a candidates eligibility, and the Court should deny these grounds for dismissal.


183 posted on 09/23/2009 8:58:42 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law.

Well, I guess that makes the 2004 Election of President Bush invalid, since Vice President Cheney "failed" to call for objections during the Joint Session counting the electoral college vote for the 2004 Election.

Jan. 6, 2005 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (151 Cong. Rec. H84-06).

Jan. 8, 2009 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (155 Cong. Rec. H75-07).

Perhaps there is another reasonable reading of the requirement, "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any."

Given that objections must be submitted in writing and therefore are known before the actual session, perhaps Cheney interpreted the requirement to provide that he must call for objections ONLY IF there were any (which he would already know about, because they'd been submitted in writing, with signatures from at least on Senator and one HRep.)

I'm not saying that that is the "right" interpretation (although I suspect that it is). But consider whether that is a reasonable interpretation. If so, you can expect Cheney (and other Reps/Senators) to object to any discovery as irrelevant, because Plaintiff's interpretation of the LAW is incorrect. That is a question of law, not of fact, and discovery would not be permitted until that issue of law was resolved.

Stated another way, in order to obtain discovery (deposing all the Senators/Reps), the Plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that the law requiring the VP to call for objections IF ANY means that the VP must call for objections even if no written objections have been filed.

Again, I'm not saying that your interpretation of the requirement is "wrong." I'm merely saying that the issue is not clear, because there is at least one other reasonable interpretation of the requirement -- and discovery likely won't be granted until that legal issue is resolved.
184 posted on 09/23/2009 9:00:11 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
(Citing Kreep's Opposition Motion)
...As discussed above, in twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority, so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. ...
Yes! This is c-r-a-z-y, and is why regardless of what happens with these cases, the focus should be on changing the laws in individual States.

The Electoral College is constitutionally empowered to make such decisions, but half of the States have voluntarily elected to strip their electors of this constitutional power/right. Those laws should be changed.

Similarly, because States retain the power to determine how federal elections are run (within the boundaries of the 14th Amendment), States have the power to require proof of eligibility, but have voluntarily elected to ignore this power. In practical terms, if only one single State changed their rules in this regard, then the entire country would benefit from it, because in order to get on the ballot in that one state, all candidates would have to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. However, I believe that all States should exercise their right (and power) to require proof of eligibility by requiring submission of an original, certified birth certificate that is accepted by the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age (or, other authenticated documentation acceptable to the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age).
185 posted on 09/23/2009 9:19:38 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
 Those laws should be changed.

Considering how robotic the EC has become, it would be easier for states to pass laws requiring the SOS to verify Constitutional qualifications. It seems to me the founders were concerned with a very different country, back then, and didn't necessarily foresee the EC becoming a decision-making body, but rather an educated one capable of tabulating local votes across a scattered, rural populace with only rudimentary means of communication.

Kreep is arguing original intent vs. modern reality (pre-electiricity/railroads vs modern high-speed communications):

Defendants cite in their Motion to Dismiss, the concurring opinion in Williams v Rhodes as support for their contention that it is the exclusive role of the Electoral College to decide whether a presidential candidate is eligible for the office. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. However, the concurrence instead indicated the concerns that the founders had regarding the fact that the nation was too spread out for the average citizen to be able to make an informed decision about whom to vote for as president, "[t]he [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation whose continental dimensions were thought to preclude an informed choice by the citizenry at large."

This concern is no longer relevant because, while the original intent for the Electoral College was to have a set number of "knowledgeable members of the community" make the decision of whom to elect as president, the modern function of the Electoral College is to simply cast a vote for the Presidential Candidate who received the majority of the vote from the State which each Elector represents. This change in the nature of the Electoral College has taken place because information about each candidate is now available for every voter in the country, which allows each and every voter to be "knowledgeable members of the community" capable of making informed decisions of whom to elect president.
(Citations removed)
By the time the modern EC meets, the votes have been tabulated, examined, analyzed and regurgitated, ad nauseum, by the media.

186 posted on 09/23/2009 10:27:50 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Leo Donofrio is in the process of obtaining is DC District Court license for the apparent purpose of bringing a quo warranto action. He said he would only do this if a client came to him with standing and he previously hinted that the closed-down Chrysler dealers would be most welcome to contact him. I suspect some have! Here is what Leo has said in editorial comments ("Ed.") about this in the past few days:

September 21, 2009 at 8:47 am:

[Ed. I'm admitted in the 3rd Circuit District Court and the State of NJ. I have been invited to join the DC Bar and Circuit because of my multi state bar exam score. I am preparing my application as we speak. But I do not have to take the DC Bar Exam. Thank God for that. Bar Exams are not fun.]

Referring to Leo's discovery suit in HI of ammendment of Obama's BC (though I, an immodest CPA and not a lawyer disagree with Leo that DOJ has agreed that Obama can be removed in quo warranto, but the opposite...I will post rebuttal later), September 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm:

[Ed. This isn't about removing the President. It's about shedding light on the situation. But you are wrong. Go read the position of the DOJ adopted in their motion to dismiss in the Barnett suit. As I reported months ago, the POTUS eligibility and removal can be handled by the DC DIstrict Court under the Quo warranto statute. The DOJ is on record in the Barnett case having argued that Orly's case is improperly venued and that a Quo Warranto must be brought in the DC District Court. The DOJ agrees that the POTUS can be removed via Quo Warranto and they are representing him.]

September 22, 2009 at 7:42 am:

[Ed. Hey RCL, welcome to the nbc blog. You should familiarize yourself with my legal brief on the federal Quo Warranto statute, a three part report. In that statute Congress authorized one single court to hear issues regarding the eligibility of all US National Officers and those Government officials specifically located in DC. The statute includes all US national govt officers, no exceptions.

The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly's cases where the DOJ represents President Obama.

You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:

The authorizing statute for the District ofColumbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36.

I have maintained that any judicial review of the President's eligibility must come through the DC District Court and the Quo Warranto statute. The DOJ agrees and has put that in an actual court document defending the President. Eventually, the President's eligibility will be challenged in the DC District Court.]

187 posted on 09/23/2009 10:45:11 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

Comment #188 Removed by Moderator

Comment #189 Removed by Moderator

To: Seizethecarp

Thank you for the update.

It is a shame there are not 100 more attorneys out there like Leo. All the Chrysler dealers and GM dealers should contact him plus top attorneys who can help.

Based on what I heard on the radio and read about Leo is that he did not like the legal system because of the corruption. I bet is was even worse in NJ. Leo has the guts and he is very sharp plus he is a poker champ.

The dealers need to get behind this. Leo is not out to make money and refuses any donations.


190 posted on 09/23/2009 11:33:44 AM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's healthcare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Lurking Libertarian; Non-Sequitur
UPDATE: In response to Orly's "Preliminary Response," Judge Carter issued a ruling today:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ counsel Dr. Orly Taitz’s (“Taitz”) Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09 Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”). The caption of the Opposition indicates that the Opposition is being filed “with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009.”

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may only amend its pleading once as a matter of course. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1). After that party has amended its pleading once, the party may only further amend its pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs have already filed a First Amended Complaint in this action, so unless they have obtained written consent from Defendants, Plaintiffs must file a regularly noticed motion asking for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint. As the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is set for October 5, 2009, Plaintiffs’ request to file a Second Amended Complaint, even if filed today, will not be ready for hearing by October 5 and will therefore not affect that hearing.
Link to Order

Translation: Orly must file a motion requesting leave to amend (and the Court must grant that motion) before she can file her Second Amended Complaint.

Additionally, the October 5, 2009 hearing on the pending Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint will proceed, and anything "new" in the Second Amended Complaint will not be considered on that date. (So her "preliminary response," along with Kreep's Opposition, will stand as the "opposition" to the Motion to Dismiss.)
191 posted on 09/23/2009 4:46:51 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

Yes, any additional amended complaint to the motion to dismiss won’t help the Plaintiffs for the 5th October hearing.


192 posted on 09/23/2009 9:57:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Leo Donofrio is in the process of obtaining is DC District Court license for the apparent purpose of bringing a quo warranto action.

If Donofrio can practice in the federal court, where he's filed his cases before, the why does he need a special license to practice in the D.C. District of the federal court?

193 posted on 09/24/2009 4:08:45 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: All

_____________________________

JB Williams

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.

(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.

(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.

(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.

(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.

(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..

Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

___________________________________

A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:

Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.

Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.

She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!

She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880

Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.

So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.

HELP HER!
PayPal:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded


194 posted on 09/24/2009 8:38:39 AM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
However, I believe that all States should exercise their right (and power) to require proof of eligibility by requiring submission of an original, certified birth certificate that is accepted by the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age (or, other authenticated documentation acceptable to the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age).

You do realize that the COLB certification that Hawaii now issues routinely, as do most other states, is accepted by the DOS as proof of US citizenship and age? If states passed that law, they would have to accept the Certification of Live Birth, as opposed to a copy of the original birth certificate.

195 posted on 09/24/2009 10:59:58 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: All

first the line with weight, height is still there.
second a line with birthplace is there, this line is not present on the “other certificate”.


196 posted on 09/25/2009 4:02:54 AM PDT by Mik Taerg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
You do realize that the COLB certification that Hawaii now issues routinely, as do most other states, is accepted by the DOS as proof of US citizenship and age? If states passed that law, they would have to accept the Certification of Live Birth, as opposed to a copy of the original birth certificate.

Yes, I do know that. And I think that should be sufficient so long as (a) the candidate has to provide an "original" stamped version (not a copy or electronic image); and (b) there is nothing on the COLB to indicate that info was altered from the original long form.
197 posted on 09/25/2009 9:19:52 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
...I think that should be sufficient so long as (a) the candidate has to provide an "original" stamped version (not a copy or electronic image)

Agreed.

...and (b) there is nothing on the COLB to indicate that info was altered from the original long form.

That's where it gets sticky. For clarity, let's refer to the original birth certificate as "the long form," and the now routinely-issued certification as "the short form." As far as I know, no one has established that there would be any indication of an altered or amended original on the short form. The statutes, IIRC, refer to the new original being marked "amended," but I don't think there's any reference to the short form being marked that way, and I haven't seen any examples of a short form so marked.

Similarly, none of the birther lawyers have ever established that Hawaii statute §338-17.8 - Certificates for children born out of State" - would necessarily indicate that the child was born in Hawaii. The statute doesn't say.

OTOH, Hawaii statute §338-20.5 - Adoption; foreign born person - does say that "The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.  This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth".

I'm not sure how other states handle adoptee birth certificates, but I do know that in Georgia, the adopted parents can opt to use their home address as the place of birth on the new certificate, irregardless of where the child was born.

What I'm getting at is the fact that the short form may not tell the whole story, since, if there's more than one version of the long form, it would simply reflect the information on the most recent long form.

The significance of that would only come into play, of course, in the case of a candidate for President.

198 posted on 09/25/2009 2:09:12 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Similarly, none of the birther lawyers have ever established that Hawaii statute §338-17.8 - Certificates for children born out of State" - would necessarily indicate that the child was born in Hawaii. The statute doesn't say.

I agree. Additionally, they have failed to explain how 338-17.8 is relevant in any regard and, given that it was enacted in 1982, they would have an uphill battle trying to make that argument.

The significance of that would only come into play, of course, in the case of a candidate for President.

? I disagree. People can become US citizens by virtue of birth in the US or by virtue of the naturalization laws. If someone is not born in the US, then that child, to become a US citizen, must be naturalized as a US citizen. So, this "rule" has significance for hundreds - thousands - of people other than those who run to be President. If they weren't really born here, and they weren't naturalized, then THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS. That "rule" has an impact far beyond the presidency.
199 posted on 09/28/2009 7:55:52 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If Donofrio can practice in the federal court, where he's filed his cases before, the why does he need a special license to practice in the D.C. District of the federal court?

You don't get a license to practice "in federal court." You get a license to practice in a federal court. There are about 100 separate federal district courts, 13 federal Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Each one of those courts licenses attorneys to practice before that court. A license to practice in, say, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania does not license you to practice in any of the 99 other district courts.

200 posted on 09/30/2009 12:45:23 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson