Skip to comments.Orly Taitz - Defendents oppose transfer of case (Quo Warranto to DC )
Posted on 01/11/2010 12:47:03 PM PST by Red Steel
It is my best guess that Obamas attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.
Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:
Orly has pointed out that Judge Carter promised to hear the case on its merits. The Justice Department defending Obama conned the Judge into dismissing and used the excuse of jurisdiction claiming only Quo Warranto can be brought in Washington DC.
Orly said, fine, lets move the case. She is asking Judge Carter to move the case to Judge Lamberths court in DC. This would serve to best expedite the case, including discovery.
Orly is making sure that Judge Carter is aware of the fact that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been stalling for many months now. An original Quo Warranto was filed in Judge Taylors Washington DC court (he has since retired.. couldnt stand the heat in my opinion).. that was back in March, 2009. The Justice Department has done everyting in its power to stall, hide, ignore the case..
Orly is telling the Judge that the longer he waits to allow we the people to seek justice in court the more damage that Obama does to our Country. The Justice Department is basically defending a Usuper in office.. the entire system appears to be corrupt.. of course, Eric Holder is simply a puppet for Obama.
We hope and pray that Judge Carter allows this case to be transferred.. Obama will have a much tougher time getting the case dismissed in Washington DC if Carter allows the transfer.. Any kind of ruling against Obama will set a precedent that could literally force the Court into action.
thanks for posting, appreciate the update.
Yes, it’s completely aburd Obama will not voluntarily show his long form BC and many other of his life credential documents.
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."
People that smoke crack are the obama voters
Time to ping the whack-a-mole folks!
Thank you for an honest, and rational answer.
Barnett v. Obama is dead, dismissed, over, stiff, dormant, mummified, ossified, inanimate, bereft of life — except in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will live a short, unproductive and inglorious life.
Orly states that people have sent faxes, letters, and made phone calls. What or where are the calling, writing, and faxing?
How can we help?
Maybe the people who are organizing the “Flood It” campaign on January 20th could help organize a protest.
We all need to get the State-run media to start reporting on this and doing in-depth reporting on this case. Unless or until that happens, nothing will happen with this issue.
We all know the State-run media does not want to touch this with a 50 foot pole. ABC,NBC,CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, et al would be much happier reporting on some folly relating to Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc.
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
Considering that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that the statement, dismissed with prejudice, closes a case in such a way as to prevent the filing of a new action or the filing of an amended complaint to continue the case with a modified claim, Dr. Taitzs filing gave the court the benefit of the doubt, and considered all the injustice and dishonesty already shown by Judge Carter as something that, in view of greater issues, could be overlooked for the present.
But no such honor was to be found sitting at Judge Carters desk of tyranny.
His in-chamber order, issued today was as brief as it was laughably mendacious:
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): CLARIFYING ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF
OCTOBER 29, 2009
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice.
The Courts dismissal of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
Mendacious, because no matter what Carter thinks his authority is, his authority and power are not capable of changing the past and adding words or significance, wherein no words or signification existed.
History herself recalls, that Judge Carters ruling of Oct. 29th clearly did not contain the words dismissed with prejudice nor any statement that the dismissal was without leave to amend.
Carter has, thus, closed the case and found himself guilty of the most grave breach of judicial ethics: lying to plaintiffs and their counsel in July in promising them a hearing on merits, as a trick to avoid having to render a default judgment against Obama for not responding to the service of court papers; hiring as a clerk a lawyer who is politically tied to the defendants; including false and unsubstantiated claims in his ruling of Oct. 29th with a purpose of defaming and libeling Dr. Orly Taitz; and finally, with great mendacity, claiming his order of Oct. 29th was something it never was in law.
Not the least of his crimes was his trashing of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in his Oct. 29th ruling.
- end snip-
Time to wack a deranged After-birther folks!
And now we hear the other side of the story.
My favorite was Missouri. Someone submitted a bill that made it mandatory that candidates show their long form birth certificates. They withdrew the bill when it was pointed out that Missouri only issues short forms.
Taitz at the very least keeps things in the news which adds more pressure and to the other Donofrio/Pidgeon Quo Warranto case. It’s better than even money the truth about Obama will come out, although it may be when he’s out of office.
Would you say it boils down to who has the most power the bend the law to suit their goals?
Go stand up and fight for the constitution of america, humblegunner. Put your ass on the line. Show me what you got rather than anonymously tossing stones from an internet forum at those who do. What's funny to me is that she has more balls than you do, apparently, a lot more.
How exactly am I in her way?
Would you say it boils down to who has the most power to bend the law to suit their goals?
For all you know, he may already have done just so.
Somehow I doubt it.
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.