Is this typical judicial conduct for DOJ ?
~~Ding!
..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!!
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.
FYI - The Kerchner lawsuit was in NJ not GA.
Ping to article questioning DOJ actions.
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.
Can anyone here speak English?
Did the DOJ go to CA for a cup of coffee?......... Then that maybe worth a line or two on some blog......
I’m starting to wonder if Judge Carter is putting this off until it becomes moot.
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").
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...
obumpa
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.