Posted on 09/29/2009 7:39:20 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
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.
HAHA!
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.
15 Days!
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/
Maybe.
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.
obumpa
Thank you for being here, very much appreciated!!!
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.