Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.
In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.
The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.
On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.
“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”
On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.
This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.
The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.
Yes. You do.
Do you really need to ask this question? If we don't stand on our principals, we are already lost.
Then what is the point of discovery?
I screwed up. Should have said writ of Quo Warranto.
You have to proof that your case has some merit.
For example, I decide that I want to sue El Gato for assault and battery because I think you broke into my house last night and beat me up in my sleep.
I have no proof of this. And you live 1000 miles away.
But I suspect that you bought a plane ticket.
The only way to confirm you bought a plane ticket is through discovery because I need to see your credit card records.
I bring a suit.
Should the judge allow discovery?
Keep in mind that I actually have stated a cause of action and am seeking damages in the amount of $10,000.00.
In no birther case, has anyone actually named any damages yet as far as I can tell. They are essentially asking for equitable relief in the form of Obama’s removal from office.
“Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?
Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.”
________________
Trials are not intended to allow you to fish for evidence. Trials are a forum in which you present your evidence.
Taitz ia a nut and this gets consistently sillier everyday.
Yes. You do.
Let me amend that. Before you can go to trial, you have to provide proof that there is a reasonable expectation that the preliminary evidence you possess is valid.
That validation, in the case of a Kenyan birth certificate, for instance, would include such proof as authentication by Kenyan authorities and examination by a forensic document expert, and not simply an affidavit by the procurer.
So you're saying that we are not damaged when our laws have been flouted and violated? This is the very definition of damage to the rule of law that affects each and every one of us directly. The "Natural Born Citizen" clause was placed in the Constitution for a vital reason. Our supreme leader must not have any loyalties besides the well being of the American people. Anything less is unacceptable. PERIOD!
First off, don't shoot the messenger here. I'm a practicing lawyer, and I am telling you what the law is, not what I think it should be.
Courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have held that lawsuits cannot be used to resolve "generalized grienances" that affect everyone equally. (For example, courts repeatedly refused to hear lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Vietnam War.) If something affects "each and every one of us," the thinking goes, it can be resolved through he ballot box, not the courts.
There are, on the other hand, well-established rules in nearly every state for challenging the qualifications of a candidate for public office, but those rules (at least all of the ones I am familiar with, but I will add that election law is not my specialty) require that the challenge be brought by another candidate. It won't have to be the Republican candidate; any minor-party candidate that gets on one state's ballot can bring the challenge in that state.
I'm not trying to shoot the messenger in this case Lurking Libertarian. What I do question is apparently the legal precedence for this framework. How did this come to be? It seems to me that the electorate has ultimate standing when it comes to elected officials. What logically am I missing here? When exactly were we sold down the river by the judiciary on this? What is the case law that led up to this sorry state of affairs?
Yes, I am saying that unfortunately.
You may have been damaged politically. Or spiritually. But name the specific, quantifiable damage that you have specifically suffered because Obama is the president. Please remember that the damages have to be specific and unique to you - not shared by 150 million people.
Birthers don’t understand what they going to unleash if they get their way on this standing thing.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you have bad tomatoes in your garden? Sue the federal government for acid rain.
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
This is like saying that if my employee lied to me on his or her employment application I have no recourse but to continue to employ them is it not?
browardchad,
You wrote “Would you prefer to live with a legal system where there are no rules? Where every case is decided by the passing whim of a judge? And nothing could be appealed, because all judgments are subjective, and therefore not based on rules, or laws?
Should we encourage trashing the Constitution because we feel this man has circumvented it?”
I had to read my post again to make sure I hadn’t inadvertently written something that would cause one to infer that I hold the views that you seem to be attributing to me, but I don’t see anything in my post that would warrant such attribution. Apparently you DO, so clue me in to what I said specifically, if you would be so kind. For the record, I’m for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and for the governance of this great nation unwaveringly according to the rule of law. I believe that the present administration is bent on circumvention of the Constitution and, when all else fails, outright violation of it. I believe that, in their minds, the rule of law is what THEY define it to be at any given moment and that expediency trumps anything and everything.
Regards.
What is the Constitutional Natural Born Citizenship requirement for? Who would it bar from office?
So by this logic the Federal Government could theoretically confiscate guns and I would not be able to sue them if I didn’t own one to begin with. Likewise, even if I did own one I wouldn’t be able to sue as long as I was financially compensated for the weapon since no financial damage was incurred. What is clearly stated in the Constitution is that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. If I am not damaged by a non citizen then becoming president, what other clauses being dismissed am I not damaged by. And if so, what remains of the meaning of having a constitution and living under the rule of law rather than the whim of men?
You are assuming that voters have final say in who their elected officials are. They do not.
The framers enacted a system where originally the only federal official you directly elected was a Representative. And if you need to fire them, you get to do it in two years.
Senators used to be voted on by state legislators, not voters.
And with Presidents we have the Electoral College which has been bastardized.
The Electoral College could have demanded proof of eligibility. Same with Congress when certifying the vote. Congress can still impeach him.
You are left without a direct recourse, but not without a recourse.
Again, think about the path you are advocating.
Want to stop the Iraq War, Code Pink? Sue George W. Bush in federal court.
Want to stop tax cuts? Sue Ronald Reagan in federal court.
It would be endless.
Naturalized citizens. Like William F. Buckley’s wife (she was a Canadian).
I realized today that under the birther argument of two citizen parents, any children of William F. Buckley, Jr. and Pat Buckley would be ineligble for office. (Ignore for a moment that keeping Chris Buckley out of the White House is a good thing).
Other people not eligible? Arnold Schwartzeneger. Henry Kissinger. Madeline Albright. Orly Taitz.
ping
The NBC clause was introduced before Naturalised Citizens existed in the US. I ask again, what is the NBC Clause for? Who would it bar?
If NBC were to bar only foreigners, why not just say that, why invent an undefined legal concept of NBC?
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.