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.
This judge was either bought or given an offer he couldn't refuse. Nobody was asking him to remove Obama from office. Only to require him to demonstrate that he is constitutionally qualified to act as Commander in Chief and give orders to the troops.
If he can demonstrate that he is qualified by coming up with the evidence in court. Fine. If not, then the Judge can demand that he come up with the proof. And then Obama's lawyers can appeal.
Obviously he can't fire Obama on his own authority. But he can require discovery: that Obama produce his proper birth records or be found in contempt.
Carter is a POS and a Democrat.
Read Orly's Complaint. That's exactly what she asked for.
If he can demonstrate that he is qualified by coming up with the evidence in court. Fine. If not, then the Judge can demand that he come up with the proof. And then Obama's lawyers can appeal. Obviously he can't fire Obama on his own authority. But he can require discovery: that Obama produce his proper birth records or be found in contempt.
Federal courts don't work that way. A case cannot be filed simply asking for discovery. Discovery is merely a way of gathering evidence for a trial. Before you can ask a federal judge to order discovery, there must be a case which asks the court to do something that the court has the authority to do.
Right, and I believe thats all she is trying to do..get his documents opened up. Someone else can take it from there.
~~PING!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re-posting for reference:
~~~
The following is information I was able to cull readily from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, which is or did represent Obama in various eligibility suits. The FEC links follow the entries.
October quarterly:
Perkins Coie 314,018.06
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
July 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie 270,754.18
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
April quarterly
Perkins Coie 688,316.42
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Year-End 2008
Perkins Coie 173,052.52
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/YE/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Amended post-general election:
Perkins Coie 205,323.00
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/30G/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Perkins Coie does not appear in the pre-general election filing or a few others I checked randomly. You are free to pursue any further information that is of interest. But one would assume that the official FEC website to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity would be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure expended to defend the eligibility suits.
This information is about the legal fees only of that one law firm, not the DOJ attorneys, court time, or other related costs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2395463/posts?page=42#42
Thank you, Ed!
~~~~~
2008 -2009 published FEC data for Obama For America
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00431445
A week before the decision you had been calling him a stand-up marine and a real American patriot. My are you fickle, Wilkie.
The fact that the plaintiff's attorney was an incompetent boob and a total nutcase didn't help the case along any either.
Even if irrefutable proof of Obama’s birth in Kenya or Indonesia was provided it would change nothing. We are so afraid of the rampant carnage (burning cities, murdering people of West-European descent) that would follow his removal from office that absolutely nothing would be done about it (other than maybe shooting the messenger).
IMHO that “we” is not all inclusive as right is right not whatever the hell they say it is.
“We” being you and the mouse in your pocket, I suppose.
I for one want to know he’s Eligible. Too many people have turned a blind-eye on this, and ultimately the cover-up needs to be exposed. Just the mere fact that we are discussing this means that a whole lot of people did not do their jobs.
This man is an idiot, a traitor, and a disgrace to his uniform. How hard is it to write and sign “Defendant should show his long form birth certificate to the court”? A very very very simple step to clear this matter up.
WHERE IS YOUR F-ING BIRTH CERTIFICATE HUSSEIN!?
I would advise anyone who had dental work done by this woman to find a new dentist, and make sure it was done properly.
jusayin’
Indeed, and I couldn’t agree more. Some of us would rather be dead than live in a PC gulag with no hope of ever changing it back to the country America was before the libs began their big wrecking-ball thrust via the 1960’s hippie revolution. The “we” I spoke of referred to that mass (dwindling daily, I hope) of people in this country who are scared to death of saying or doing something politically incorrect and then having to suffer the consequences from the Left that will most certainly follow.
Regards.
It would change everything, but there is no proof, never mind "irrefutable proof," and it's not the Court's job to find proof.
That's what Orly, and many people who follow this issue, refuse to understand.
If you think he's not eligible, first you have to present some sort of verified, substantiated, certified proof of ineligibility to get the court, or Congress, to act.
Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.
Does she have no idea how the legal system works?
Does she have no idea how the legal system works?
It’s not that hard to do. I’m not lawyer and I could put it together in a week to 10 days.
I hope it turns out that you’re right, browardchad, but I remain skeptical. The ruling elite has demonstrated its disdain for the Constitution to the point now that they don’t even try to sugar coat it. And, for the most part, the American sheeple cower in fear of being accused of racism, that being considered now the most egregious of sins in the Universe, and anyone who suggested Obama be deposed would be called a racist, proof of his foreign birth notwithstanding. I just don’t see, given the present climate of PC we live in, that “[I]t would change everything...” For one to “...get the court, or Congress, to act” one blithely assumes a court that unwaveringly adheres to the rule of law (a foolish assumption) or one trusts Congress—and we should all by now know what a den of jackals Congress is.
Yes, ultimately Orly is working for Obama’s removal. But she is asking the judge to examine the evidence she has provided that he was born in the Coastal Province of Kenya and therefore has no legitimate claim to give orders to the military. And they are putting themselves in legal jeopardy if they obey orders from an illegitimate authority. According to international law, going back for centuries, and according to the Nuremberg trials, to take one instance, it’s not enough for a soldier to say that he is obeying orders. They must be legitimate orders. You can’t just close your eyes to such questions and obey blindly.
But this judge is not expected to remove Obama personally. He is expected to consider the evidence and the particular case in question—can military personnel be expected to obey the commands of a commander whose legitimacy is in real doubt?
So, he should either be calling in expert witnesses to argue whether the evidence Orly provided appears to be legitimate, or is forged, or he should be asking Obama to provide the usual evidence that he is a natural born American citizen with a right to be President.
Nothing unusual about that. Nothing private or personal about that. Every American is expected to come up with a valid birth certificate if the situation and the law call for it.
Awesome!
Please let us know when you have the suit filed and post your progress.
Awesome!
Please let us know when you have the suit filed and post your progress.
Sooo basically what you're saying is that you cant get there from here. This is one gigantic load. If the Judiciary does not have the authority to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency according to the Constitution, then just who does?
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b): "The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished."
Before the election, many states' election laws would have permitted a challenge to Obama's qualifications, if brought by another candidate on the ballot. This could have been done either by another Democratic candidiate during the primaries, or by McCain or a third party candidate during the general election. But no one brought such a suit, and the time to do so ran once the election was held. (It can still be done for 2012).
Once the election was held, Congress could have considered a challenge to Obama's qualifications when it certified the electoral votes, but no one objected.
At this point, the only way to remove Obama from office before 2012 is by impeachment.
You mean proof that Mr. Obama seems to have gone to rather ridiculous extremes to deny the various plaintiffs in these cases? Sorry, it seems your argument is getting a bit circular here.
You're probably right but what about his ability to run again in 2012? I'd say the question is legitimate and far from over. What was the last job that you got while refusing to answer these questions. The last job I got I had to have a Notary Public certify my proof of citizenship documents before submitting them to my contract company.
Not at all, If you want to prove Obama is ineligible, you need to present proof of ineligibility. It's not a complicated concept, nor is it a circular one.
Yes, it is. Once again, Mr. Obama has hired a phalanx of lawyers and spent over a million dollars to keep such evidence from the plaintiffs in these cases and no judge so far has seen fit to compel disclosure of said evidence. How is this not a circular argument?
Who is this “we” you refer to? Yourself and who else? Not me.
Signup date of the “we are afraid” personage.
As I posted above, the pre-election challenges can be brought in 2012. But a candidate who is on the ballot must bring such a challenge, and during the narrow time frame the law allows (in most states, that would be after Obama files his offficial statement of intention to run and before the ballots are printed).
As I posted above, the pre-election challenges can be brought in 2012. But a candidate who is on the ballot must bring such a challenge, and during the narrow time frame the law allows (in most states, that would be after Obama files his offficial statement of intention to run and before the ballots are printed).
You don't have to hope, you can read the Federal Rules of Evidence here. They're not a secret, and they're not that difficult to understand.
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 certainly don't want to live in such a place. And I'm not willing to give up defending the rule of law because we are now saddled with such a sorry excuse for a President.
You can still file complaints that can take the form of a mandamus action. Just don’t need to follow arcane pleading forms.
So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?
Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.
Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.
No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.
Why must it be a candidate on the ballot. Do not each and every one of us have standing to determine if our presidential candidates are eligible and have been lawfully elected? It would seem to me self evident that this is the case. Each one of us as sovereign citizens give up by choice some of our power to our elected officials. It is ridiculous on the face of it that we then have no right to question their legitimacy and qualifications.
“it would change nothing. We are so afraid of the rampant carnage (burning cities, murdering people of West-European descent)”
This is, unfortunately, a point worth considering. Would it be worth overlooking this outrageous Constitutional violation if it meant we were spared an uprising of the blacks that could destabilise this country for years beyond just the immediate “get whitey” raping and pillaging? Or should we stand on principle for the Constitution and take the consequences?
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?
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.