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:
September 22, 2009 at 11:26 am
Your current effort to obtain from HI any requests to amend Obamas 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 dont 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 Orlys 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 Kreeps 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?
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 statewhether or not McCain is in the raceare 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, Robinsons preferred candidate Alan Keyes is exceedingly unlikely to win any electoral votes in California, even if McCain were disqualified. Robinsons claim of injury is thus too speculative and insufficiently imminent to satisfy Article III, as the district court correctly concluded.
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 Orlys case on appeal for the reasons you have cited, if Judge Carter orders discovery of Obamas vital records in HI on Oct. 5 and Obamas 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.]
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.
The Chrysler dealers should get with Leo to write up a quo warranto action.