Skip to comments.Attorney wants to argue eligibility in Washington (Obama birth-certificate)
Posted on 12/30/2009 12:55:02 PM PST by americanophile
A lawyer who has fought government attorneys in courthouses across the nation over the issue of President Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House now wants the dispute moved to the nation's capital, since that's where government lawyers have said there would be proper jurisdiction.
Orly Taitz is asking the California judge who earlier dismissed her clients' claims on jurisdictional issues, noting that the proper venue would be Washington, to simply move the case there.
"During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant U.S. attorneys David DeJutte and Roger West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia," Taitz argues in a new court filing before Judge David Carter.
"On October 29 this case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction only and was never heard on the merits, as this court noted in the above order that the proper jurisdiction is the District of Columbia court," she wrote.
Taitz told WND today that there could be no opposition from the U.S. attorneys since they had argued for the jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., and the case then could be heard on its merits.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country,
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
One of Obama’s flock —
I see! :-)
This is an Obamabat thread. It has attracted the whole bevy of Obamabats.
Are they akin to the “Titzbats”
What proof did the court have that said BHO was eligible other than third-party hearsay? His book Dreams of My Father is increansingly becoming a work of fiction.
Besides, Wong v. Ark was decided before the Nationality Act of 1952 (repealed 1986)
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.