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

Skip to comments.

DOJ notifies Judge Carter re: Kerchner ruling - with thanks to Citizens Against Pro-Obama Media Bias
Oil for Immigration ^ | 10-22-09

Posted on 10/23/2009 2:29:59 AM PDT by STARWISE

This is news .. the DOJ has officially notified CA Judge David Carter, presently reviewing his next move in the Keyes et al v. Obama et al lawsuit ... of a GA judge's decision in the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit.

______________________________________________________

It clearly shows that Judge Carter doesn’t deserve to be addressed as such the guy is looking for the easy way out while making sure not to upset the Usurper-in-Chief. I may be wrong but Carter has sold out.

-David Crockett

Maybe Judge Carter was waiting for Judge Simandle’s ruling granting dismissal in the Kerchner case. It came down Tuesday and the DOJ just made Judge Carter officially aware of it.

I believe Judge Carter must be waiting for something because after reading more of the court proceedings it’s become clear he would find it hard to rule against barry no matter where his birth. So why else is he delaying his ruling?


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhodoj; birthcertificate; birthers; carter; certifigate; davidcarter; doj; judgecarter; judgeland; judgesimandle; kerchner; keyesobama; keyesvobama; obama; orly; orlytaitz; taitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 87 - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Defendants Michelle LR Obama, Hill

Is this typical judicial conduct for DOJ ?

1 posted on 10/23/2009 2:30:00 AM PDT by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; April Lexington; ...

~~Ding!


2 posted on 10/23/2009 2:30:39 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
doesnt sound good, this was from comments at article link.

..Also on 10/22 glenn beck show, beck strongly hinted that bob bauer is getting white house job, possibly the new obama white house counsel!!

3 posted on 10/23/2009 2:44:44 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk; All

That’s my speculation as well .. rumors about
WH Counsel leaving have been circulating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment from article link:

###

If the DOJ had any contact with Judge carter outside of the case with out Orly being present to excude this new finding of the other case than the judge is by all means a crook.

The law does not allow any party to the a pending case to have counsel be it writing and or verbal in the matters affecting this case without both counsels being present.

Orly should kick judge Carter’s butt.

He should and has to recuse himself from the case at once if not then we need to go stand in his front yard day and night and protest. The judge is also required by law to arrest whom ever tainted his pending case that is the rule of law. Period.


4 posted on 10/23/2009 2:47:23 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Is this typical judicial conduct for DOJ ?

It's typical, and proper, conduct for any attorney arguing a case in federal court. It's simply a matter of fowarding a decision recently made in another federal court case that has elements in common with the case being decided, and asking the judge to "notice" the ruling.

If Kerchner had been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, Orly could/should have done the same.

5 posted on 10/23/2009 3:18:47 AM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Having read many things written by Orly Taitz over the past year or so, I’m beginning to recognize her rather distinctive take on the English language.

She wrote that blog comment herself, imho.


6 posted on 10/23/2009 3:37:20 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

FYI - The Kerchner lawsuit was in NJ not GA.


7 posted on 10/23/2009 4:01:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; MilspecRob; ...

Ping to article questioning DOJ actions.


8 posted on 10/23/2009 4:08:00 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

9 posted on 10/23/2009 4:10:26 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (A mob of one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Orly should kick judge Carter’s butt.

Well so much for the "Judge Carter is a stand-up Marine, and once a Marine always a Marine" argument. The Birthers are already turning on him.

10 posted on 10/23/2009 4:12:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
The law does not allow any party to the a pending case to have counsel be it writing and or verbal in the matters affecting this case without both counsels being present.

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Taitz submitted at least two motions to the judge after the October 5th hearing? Without attorneys from both sides being involved? There was the emergency ex-parte motion for relief from stay of discovery and the request for judicial notice that I recall, there may well have been more. Are you saying that those were improper as well?

11 posted on 10/23/2009 4:19:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
-- Is this typical judicial conduct for DOJ? --

Yes. When handling multiple cases stemming from the same complaint or cause of action, the party that gets good treatment in another venue brings that fact into each affected case. The DOJ did this with the multiple lawsuits that challenged the president's authority to conduct the Terrorist Surveillance Program and other assorted warrantless surveillance.

12 posted on 10/23/2009 4:23:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Can anyone here speak English?

13 posted on 10/23/2009 4:30:03 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Anyone who claims to be objective marks himself as hopelessly subjective.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

That’s exactly what I was thinking, though Orly’s motions may be a case of “hooray for our side.”


14 posted on 10/23/2009 5:20:16 AM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Barnett and other military oath takers, like Kirchner, may not get standing. However, I do feel Carter will allow third-party presidential candidates, like Keyes, to move forward.

There was an active duty junior officer who was recently promoted even though he called Obama a usurper. Now we need an active duty field-grade officer to step forward, like Major Cook.


15 posted on 10/23/2009 6:10:08 AM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I don’t see a big problem with this, other than it just looks bad, but it seems a reasonable thing for an attorney to do. It is looking more and more like no judge or court in this country is going to open this can of worms on Obama. It’s a very sad testimony on the rule of law and the state of our constitution in America today. It’s time for citizens to start drawing up articles of impeachment, much like they did with the grand juries. Everyday brings another abuse of power and dereliction of duty from Obama and his administration. Other presidents have been impeached for far less than what Obama has already done.


16 posted on 10/23/2009 6:40:10 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
> already turning on him.

Don't count your chicks before they've clucked.

OTOH, the country has ALREADY turned on the egg-laying bird-brained
Progressive-in-chief.

Photobucket



17 posted on 10/23/2009 6:49:05 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Did the DOJ go to CA for a cup of coffee?......... Then that maybe worth a line or two on some blog......


18 posted on 10/23/2009 6:49:56 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; browardchad

Thank you.


19 posted on 10/23/2009 6:56:53 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Okay .. thank you.


20 posted on 10/23/2009 6:58:02 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

“He should and has to recuse himself from the case at once if not then we need to go stand in his front yard day and night and protest.”

Good lord.

Yeah, go do that, and have a good time.


21 posted on 10/23/2009 7:40:27 AM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I’m starting to wonder if Judge Carter is putting this off until it becomes moot.


22 posted on 10/23/2009 8:09:06 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Dr. taitz, Esq. has also filed a request for Judicial Notice in the same manner the DOJ has.


23 posted on 10/23/2009 8:24:20 AM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
It clearly shows that Judge Carter doesn’t deserve to be addressed as such the guy is looking for the easy way out while making sure not to upset the Usurper-in-Chief. I may be wrong but Carter has sold out.

How does the action of the DoJ say much of anything about Judge Carter, rather than aobut the slime at the DoJ? It's not like he could prohibit them from filling the request for judicial notice.

It might even backfire. I know it would tick me off. "See, here's what that Judge in NJ ruled". My answer would be: "That's his court, this is MY court, and I will decide based on MY understanding of the law and the facts" (IOW, "and the camel you rode in on").

24 posted on 10/23/2009 10:57:37 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Taitz submitted at least two motions to the judge after the October 5th hearing?

Yes

Without attorneys from both sides being involved?

No, her filings contained evidence of service to the DOJ attorneys, I don't see any such notice on the DoJ Filing. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

25 posted on 10/23/2009 11:13:16 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BP2

LOL; no sign of a trend reversal either


26 posted on 10/23/2009 11:44:32 AM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I think the longer it takes, the better it is for Taitz’ case.

I may be wrong but typically if a judge thinks a case is frivolous, he or she issues a short and quick opinion agreeing with the usual motion to dismiss.

The longer the wait, the more “meat” in the issuing opinion that could reasonably be expected from both sides, one way or another.

The more “meat” in the issuing opinion, the more chance Carter exposes himself to being overturned, unless the arguments are airtight.

I think given the lack of case history of cases of this type, the latitude for a reasoned decision may be somewhat broad either way.

In such circumstances, Carter could perform a favor to the country by simply issuing a opinion denying the motion to dismiss and letting the 9th circuit court of appeals handle the legal backlash that would surely come.

(1) the case falls squarely into a legal flaw in the constitution itself, a flaw that needs to be plugged one way or another

(2) it puts the federal government on notice that no one is above the law

(3) Obama can hardly claim he is not responsible for the constitutional crisis since it is he who is avoiding making public the $12 certificate.

(4) any flawed decision will be overviewed by the appeals courts and corrected.

Finally I think the notion that the long distance to file a Quo Warranto in DC court and the attendant anticipated inconvenience to the plaintiffs have both historical and contemporary merit.

If Carter decides to grant the motion to dismiss, and recommend to Taitz where to bring the suit properly, it is a problem because really no court wants this politically charged hot potato case. Carter can’t really claim to speak for another court with any veracity so making such a recommendation will probably satisfy no one. If Taitz takes such a recommendation and it is refused in the next court, it could lead to widespread civil unrest depending on circumstances and if that happens, it could lead to a general devaluation of the court system in the public eye.

So the more time elapses, I think the better Taitz’ chances are.

I think the DOJ lawyers have to be at this point more nervous than Taitz on the outcome...


27 posted on 10/23/2009 12:20:20 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

1) the case falls squarely into a legal flaw in the constitution itself, a flaw that needs to be plugged one way or another

~~~~~~

Isn’t THAT the incontrovertible, undeniable
and vital TRUTH!

Thank you for your well-reasoned post ... ;)


28 posted on 10/23/2009 12:22:35 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

I don’t believe putting it off makes it moot though! What it does is brings us closer to the dates that are already on the docket to hear the case. Maybe he is just going to let this go since the dates are set in stone.

This is my hope and in by no means anything other than my hope! :)


29 posted on 10/23/2009 12:35:54 PM PDT by jcsjcm (American Patriot - follow the Constitution and in God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

obumpa


30 posted on 10/23/2009 12:55:30 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

IF Judge Carter were to deny the motion, would the Taitz camp then be immediately free to file and receive discovery materials so far being hideena nd withheld by Obama? ... Could the judge allow discovery and make the ninth circuit liberal spittlefest moot by allowing the truth to be ‘discovered’ regardless of the liberla ninth shutting down the case later?


31 posted on 10/23/2009 1:25:50 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 27 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; BP2; Kenny Bunk

Meant to ping you folks to my queries ...


32 posted on 10/23/2009 1:26:39 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 31 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

I wonder, as the date for trial gets closer, could Carter be holding his denial of the MTD so that it coems out so close to trial that the DOJ cannot squelch it on appeal due to shortage of response time?


33 posted on 10/23/2009 1:29:09 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 29 | View Replies]

To: All
Diverging tangent apologies.

Did anyone notice on Rush today that after he read the quote from Zero's Columbia thesis and played the old clip from some public radio interview, he pointed out that our so-called pres has always and continues to be an adversary to the Constitution?

In the same breath he went on to say as he trailed away into the break something about being interested in a number of lawsuits that were on the way related to The One’s attacks on the US Constitution. I immediately thought about eligibility suits when he said that, but that may say more about my interests than it does about what was on his mind?

Does anybody know what litigation he was referencing? Did it sound like eligibility stuff to anyone but me?

I wonder if Rush may already be or may be considering becoming a silent patron for one or more of the eligibility suits.

34 posted on 10/23/2009 1:38:15 PM PDT by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

I heard Rush, and I noticed he said something about things bubbling up or coming to a head out there and there was something else he said that gave it a very optimistic feel.

It was vague and nonspecific, but he sounded like he might have noticed a glimmer of hope about something. Who knows.


35 posted on 10/23/2009 2:31:29 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (When liberal ideology is put into practice it accomplishes, universally, the opposite of its claims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Thanks, it would be cool if somebody had the exact quotes from that segment (maybe a 24/7 subscriber) and could post that for us to kick around a bit.


36 posted on 10/23/2009 2:39:02 PM PDT by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; El Gato; BP2
At the moment, the fight to get Obama's documentation has taken an exciting turn for our team in Hawaii. The authorities there have been acting in contravention of Hawaii's very strong version of FOIA, The Hawaiian Uniform Information Provision Act (UIPA). They are being called on it by several citizens, and one very good attorney, Leo Donofrio, the "Natural born citizen" guy. Leo always points out that no matter where Obama was born, even if in the US, he still would not be POTUS-eligible because his father was a British Subject. That simply is not a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the Constitution.

Also, according to Hawaii's Laws, once Obama posted that notorious COLB, he waived any right to privacy over the supporting documents. The Hawaiians stonewalling of requests for Obama documents has been bullshiite from the git-go. Now they are caught good and proper.

They are not going down easily, but they are going down. It's a big step ... and speed counts!

37 posted on 10/23/2009 3:01:10 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Congratulations Obama Voters! You are not prejudiced. Unpatriotic, maybe. Dumb definitely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

Ask on the Rush daily thread .. just do
a search for keyword Rush .. top right.


38 posted on 10/23/2009 3:01:14 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

Lucas Daniel Smith 10.12.09 new Declaration SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx


39 posted on 10/23/2009 3:16:00 PM PDT by InspectorSmith (Lucas Daniel Smith 10.12.09 new Declaration SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Thanks. I have done so now. Perhaps someone will help out. I’m often curious about where Rush is on this issue. It intrigues me how he always keeps it at arm’s length, but occaisionally throws out a tantalizing reference to it.


40 posted on 10/23/2009 3:42:45 PM PDT by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith
Wow, what a mess!

Are you, InspectorSmith, claiming to be Lucas Smith himself?

if so . . .

Is the Mombasa hospital cert that you obtained really what it claims to be? Do you hold additional info that the public has yet to hear that will help validate it?

In your personal opinion, do you feel convinced that BHO was born in Kenya?

How and when will we know more about the Mombasa cert? As you know, you are widely doubted as a credible source of course for numerous reasons (not unlike Mrs. Taitz), but I'm interested at least in considering any answer you may have to these questions.

And yes, I have viewed your youtube statements defending against some of the debunk arguments from Corsi et al.

41 posted on 10/23/2009 4:18:46 PM PDT by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I was wondering if you knew who this guy was. His name is Lucas Daniel Smith and this was filed on 10/12/09.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx

I found this on scribd.com after googling some of the recent court documents that have been filed. This guy seems like a scumbag.


42 posted on 10/23/2009 4:28:19 PM PDT by socialismislost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: socialismislost

Oh yeah .. he’s been around for awhile.
Claims he has THE birth certificate,
which he bribed a govt. official for
in Kenya.


43 posted on 10/23/2009 4:42:12 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

This is the first time I read about this. Has this been filed in court? I finished reading it and it is a bizarre document. Lots of nasty claims, many “R” rated. WTH?


44 posted on 10/23/2009 4:51:31 PM PDT by socialismislost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith
Are Lucas Smith and Larry Sinclair related? ... Their derangements seem to parallel each other.
45 posted on 10/23/2009 4:57:09 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 39 | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith

Can you comment further on this?


46 posted on 10/23/2009 5:26:55 PM PDT by socialismislost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: socialismislost

I started reading the document. Halfway through it it became obvious the guy is a fruit loop. I don’t see what the purpose of this document is and I can’t help but wonder how much is he getting paid.


47 posted on 10/23/2009 6:37:15 PM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: InspectorSmith

Look!
It’s Ebay boy!


48 posted on 10/23/2009 7:24:20 PM PDT by MrLuigi (incompetence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Also, according to Hawaii's Laws, once Obama posted that notorious COLB, he waived any right to privacy over the supporting documents. The Hawaiians stonewalling of requests for Obama documents has been bullshiite from the git-go. Now they are caught good and proper.

However, did Obama post actually post the certification image, or someone working for the campaign? If someone else, did Obama acknowedge it as authentic (in contrast to reserving some manner of "plausible deniability" if it were to have been demonstrated in some way to be fake? And if so, then by what law is his right to privacy waived with the partial disclosure (a) as a private citizen, and (b) as President?

I'd be gratified to learn that what you wrote is reliable but a difficulty is determining reliable interpretation of the law from run-of-the-mill legalistic hype and maneuvering (on all sides).

49 posted on 10/25/2009 2:04:17 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

NIIIICCCEEEE!! I forgot about that..... Once they posted the COLB, they cannot cry “privacy” - due to waiver. :)

This is gettin’ GOOD!


50 posted on 10/25/2009 4:54:23 PM PDT by lawyerchik1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next 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