Skip to comments.(wow--Judge Carter) A very good day today for Orly Taitz
Posted on 09/29/2009 7:39:20 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
29 Sep 2009 A very good day today for Orly Taitz
I think all those prayers help. Today I had two of my motions granted.
1. Judge Carter had granted my motion for surreply. I can provide 10 more pages of argument and all the necessary attachments by October 1st.
2. Judge Land in GA granted my motion to withdraw as counsel. the reason, i had to do it, since Cpt Connie Rhodes was under tremendous pressure, intimidation by the military and department of defense and she stated that she didnt want to proceed under this pressure. Now I dont have my hands tied behind my back, I can provide more info, now I can do more on my own behalf.
Judge Carter has spoken
**GUEST Comment Posted: 29 Sep 2009 06:02
Post subject: Apparently Judge David O. Carter has spoken:
Apparently Judge David O. Carter has spoken:
Quote: MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUR-REPLY : The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion and will give Plaintiffs leave of court to file a surreply not to exceed ten (10) pages to be filed by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009. Plaintiffs courtesy copy of the sur-reply shall be delivered to the Courts dropbox on the ninth floor of the Santa Ana courthouse by no later than noon on October 2, 2009. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla)
This simply means that he is going to hear this case and order discovery immediately.
Apparently Mr. Obama thought as the Executive of the US he could issue absurd orders as if he has the same authority as a Federal Judge and seal documents which should have been made public before his nomination as the Democratic candidate.
If Judge Carter does in fact denies all the Defendant's motions and Orders immediate discovery and a trial on the merits many people in high places in the US Government will begin to get very nervous. We are referring to Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (born March 26, 1940) which is the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and also a member of the Democratic Party. She signed all the documents that acknowledge that Barack Hussein Obama II was qualified and eligible to occupy the post of the President of the United States.
Will she be the first to resign or be impeached if it turns out that Mr. Obama was in fact not eligible to occupy that post?
Orly Taitz has a couple more days available to her to present more evidence and allegations why this case must go to trial and the most important is simply that the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches and is the last possibility for the American People to be granted judicial review and due process as guaranteed by the US Constitution and to make the Separation and Balance of Powers reality.
An Executive Order will never be above a Court Order if that Executive Order is illegal and has been signed by someone that is not eligible to occupy the post of the President of the Federal Government of the United States which will be determined by a Trial by Jury on the merits.
If discovery is ordered we still have to vault the pleading of Presidential Executive Privilege as a defence to discovery. That will take some time to work through.
Kudos to Orly!!!
“This simply means that he is going to hear this case and order discovery immediately.”
Who comes up with this crap? That is not what the order means.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Another positive step taken.
Looks like an anonymous poster on a different forum.
Resign? Never. Impeached? By whom? The liberal 'Rat Congress? HA!
What is the Executive Privilege argument? His birth certificate and other personal documentation from before he was pres—ent have no bearing on his private consultation with members of the executive branch or his ability to perform his executive functions. Is this argument made in the Gov’t’s papers?
But I expect it will be.
Presidential executive privilege has long been the panacea of leftist presidents, and they always try to expand its effect.
I know that the birth certificate is not an executive document, but they will try to make it so, and a liberal judge just might listen, as they have in other cases, including those of Bill Clinton.
I think that in the case of Clinton, he had some success in lower courts with the executive privilege claims, but ultimately lost all of them. Still, it served it’s strategic purpose, which was to delay, delay, delay and to drive up the costs so that his minions could go on Sunday talk shows and say: this is all old news and its costing the American people 10’s of millions of dollars about a private sexual matter.
So, I agree with you that if they can make the argument with any plausibility at all, they will, even if it is totally without merit.
Recall that Clinton had the chutzpah to raise the Soldiers & Sailors Relief Act:
an act that was designed to protect members of our armed forces from suits filed while they were overseas.
Like greater apes, Democrats (e.g. Begala, `Serpenthead’, Rahm, Soetero, Pelosi, Reid and all the other usual suspects) will throw their own skat against the wall if they think it would stick.
Orly Taitz better watch her back, as well as Judge Carter, who I bet will either get a call or receive a visitor who will tell him to back off if he knows what’s good for him.
"Hello, Ms. Taitz? I have the irrefutable proof you're look for. Yes, meet me at Ft. Marcy Park...."
“This simply means that he is going to hear this case and order discovery immediately.” Um, no, that is not what this means. He may or may not hear this case on the merits. What this means is, Judge Carter has granted Taitz the opportunity to submit surreply not to exceed ten pages. That is all this means. He may even grant the defendants the opportunity to surreply when Orly’s surreply is in, but that is not yet clear either.
This means nothing. The judge is letting her respond to the reply brief filed by the moving party, Obama's lawyers. It could be that the judge wants to make sure she can't complain that she didn't get to make all her arguments when he slams her.
I see you made the point already.
This simply means nothing of the sort. The judge is allowing Tatitz to file one more reply before ruling on the defense motion to dismiss.
And if Judge Carter rules against Taitz next week, will that be your explanation as to why?
The executive Orders ONLY cover the documents that he generates as President. It in NO WAY covers anything generated before that time, and that Executive order ONLY covers Federal Documents.
So, The Executive Order is utterly irrelevant.
It could also mean that the Obama reply brief raised some issues not in the original motion and Carter decided that Taitz was entitled to an opportunity to respond to a new argument.
It did. The defense response referred to the Rhodes v. MacDonald decision in Georgia, which had not been handed down prior to Taitz filing her reply. Taitz is entitled to offer a rebuttle to that.
The Rhodes decision is not binding on Judge Carter, nor any other U.S. District Court Judge in the country.
Not binding per se. But it is precedent that can by used to support a decision. If the defense is going to use it to support their side then Taitz is entitled to a chance to refute it.
I is not a precedent, either. It was only a U.S. District Court decision and IS NOT a precedent. Even if that decision was appealed and upheld byt the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it would not be binding on Carter since it is in another circuit.
Aside from that, the Rhodes case may have little or no relevance to the case in CA.
If there was a precendent case in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS, that would be a different matter.
It is pathetic that she is making a big deal out of these “victories.” There is almost no circumstance under which such motions would NOT be granted.
I haven’t followed these cases at all, but this makes her sound like a complete flake.
If that is true then why is Gary Kreep referencing Hollister v. McCain, a New Hampshire district court case, as justification for his claim that Keyes has standing because he was a presidential candidate?
I believe the defendant also, subsequently, raised the issue of Quo Warranto being the only means by which Barry could be challenged/removed.
I did not say Obama couldn't use the Rhodes USDC decision in his argument. I just said it wasn't binding on Carter. The same goes Keyes' pleadings. He can use the same arguments, but they aren't binding either. Judge Carter can give them whatever weight he chooses or can choose to ignore them.
That argument has quite a bit of merit, but I would be surprised if Obama's attorneys admit that. If so, a petition needs to be filed in the USDC for the District of the District of Columbia.
I have always thought such an action would be the best course of action to get to the bottom of Obama's qualifications; and quo warranto type actions move very quickly.
I felt like someone int eh brither movement should make the point before Non-Sequitur or other obamanoid trashed us all for the mistake of one.
The most hilarious thing happened in the DOJ Motion to dismiss... they agreed with my Quo Warranto analysis and they stated that any attempt to test the qualification of the POTUS belongs in the DC District Court as a Quo Warranto. See page 16.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/barnes-v-obama-important-discovery-is-available-now-according-to-judge-carters-order-of-sept-17-2009/
Yes, that is a possibility, too. Generally, the moving papers should contain all the grounds for the motion, and new arguments should not be raised in a reply brief.
Thank you for being here, very much appreciated!!!
The arguments were pretty arrogant slapping this Marine judge’s face, saying: “Hey you little snake judge, who do you think you are, get out of OUR business”???
She is. And she misrepresents what people say and the meaning of court orders. I'm not at all sure if it is because she doesn't understand these things herself, or because she is simply that dishonest.
And yet she’s a hero to some here.
Incorrect. It's persuasive precedent sometimes called persuasive authority by attorneys, not binding precedent. If this had been a 9th Circuit, or Supreme Court decision, then it would have been binding precedent.
Just try to tell a US District Court judge that another judge’s ruling is a precedent if that circuit court has not affirmed the same decision based on the same reasoning.