Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader
Associated Press ^ | January 10, 2011 | Associated Press

Posted on 01/10/2011 10:22:46 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the challenge to President Barack Obama's citizenship.

The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; orly; orlytaitz; taitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
No comment, no dissent (although Justices Scalia and Thomas did dissent from other cert. denials today). No surprise, either.
1 posted on 01/10/2011 10:22:53 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Another way for the SCOTUS to “Kick the can” down the road.


2 posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:51 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The Supreme Court of Cowards


3 posted on 01/10/2011 10:29:43 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
We are still awaiting the release of the BC from the Governor of Hawaii. Any day now, right? (sarc)
4 posted on 01/10/2011 10:36:32 AM PST by cameraeye (A happy kufir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

This may be more related to Tiatz than the topic at hand. From my observations her actions have seemed to draw more attention to herself than the serious matter she was trying to get addressed. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems there’s a real kook factor here. I’d rather have had someone else representing our cause on this matter.


5 posted on 01/10/2011 10:37:37 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Justices (with fingers in ears)”la,la,la, I can’t HEAR you,America!”


6 posted on 01/10/2011 10:38:09 AM PST by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; little jeremiah

*ping*


7 posted on 01/10/2011 10:41:11 AM PST by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

This court and the FBI is WELL AWARE of 0b’s use of multiple Social Security numbers and would have you or I locked up by now.


8 posted on 01/10/2011 10:45:20 AM PST by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years... The Supremes have secured their legacy as the gutless accomplices of those who would destroy this great nation.


9 posted on 01/10/2011 10:49:31 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

I agree with that. There are other serious matters in addition to this too.

My point was that some of Taitz’s actions caused the court to focus on her more than the merits of her actions. She didn’t get that $20k fine for nothing. I don’t believe she was proceeding in a proper manner.

I can’t put my finger on the information now, but some of her actions had me scratching my head when I read about them. That’s where I developed my views of what her efforts were actually going to gain us.

I’m open to alternative views. I’m going with my opinion on this developed over time.


10 posted on 01/10/2011 10:55:48 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM; Waco

Wasn’t this appeal focused on the $20k fine?

It wasn’t focused on the merits of the case was it?

I think folks may be reading too much into this rejection. It may not be a rejection of the facts in the case at all. It may only reference whether Taitz’s actions were proper or not.


11 posted on 01/10/2011 10:57:54 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
My point was that some of Taitz’s actions caused the court to focus on her more than the merits of her actions.

If so, we are doomed as a nation when the actions of the highest court in the land are more in line with American Idol than with the rule of law. We have truly lost our way.

12 posted on 01/10/2011 11:06:00 AM PST by garybob (More sweat in training, less blood in combat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Wasn’t this appeal focused on the $20k fine?

It wasn’t focused on the merits of the case was it?

I think folks may be reading too much into this rejection. It may not be a rejection of the facts in the case at all. It may only reference whether Taitz’s actions were proper or not.


Yes and no. Ms. Taitz could only appeal the imposition of the $20,000 in sanctions against her imposed by the original trial court judge in Georgia, US District Court Judge Clay R. Land.
However she submitted a supplemental brief to her Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking the High Court to address the following questions:
1. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

2. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 13 (1954).

3. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

4. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?

5. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?

6. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?

7. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

8. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?

9. What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?

If four of the nine judges had agreed to entertain the original petition and the supplemental brief, the full Court would have heard oral arguements on those points.


13 posted on 01/10/2011 11:13:02 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: garybob

Gary, my premise was that the court was asked to rule whether the $20k fine was appropriate or not. On the merits, it may have been appropriate.

The court may not have been asked to rule on the merits of Taitz’s charges against Obama.

I don’t remember the particulars with regard to why the $20k fine first came down.


14 posted on 01/10/2011 11:18:17 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
If four of the nine judges had agreed to entertain the original petition and the supplemental brief, the full Court would have heard oral arguements on those points.

Actually, not, although Orly thought so.

Orly Taitz's client, Captain Rhodes, did not appeal the dismissal of the original suit, so the only issue before the Court was Judge Land's sanction against Orly. Orly filed all sorts of briefs trying to bring the eligibility issue up, but that issue was not and could not have been before the Supreme Court in this case. (The eligibility issue was before the Supreme Court in 8 or 9 previous cases, all of which were denied without comment or dissent, and will again be before the Court this Friday in the Hollister case, which will meet with the same fate.)

15 posted on 01/10/2011 11:19:34 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I don’t remember the particulars with regard to why the $20k fine first came down.

It was not for filing the suit challenging Obama's eligibility. it was for filing a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case, in which she accused the judge of "treason" and claimed that the judge had secretly met with Attorney General Holder in the courthouse in Georgia (on a day when Holder was actually making public appearances in Los Angeles).

16 posted on 01/10/2011 11:24:14 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: garybob

If so, we are doomed as a nation when the actions of the highest court in the land are more in line with American Idol than with the rule of law. We have truly lost our way.


However, on the other side, the original trial court judge is a former Republican Georgia state Senator who was recommended for his federal judgeship by Senator Saxby Chambliss and was apppointed to the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia bench by President George W. Bush and Judge Land said of Orly Taitz’s behavior: “The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better.”
The original plaintiff in this case was US. Army Flight Surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes who refused to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility. When the trial court dimissed the complaint, Captain Rhodes deployed to Iraq and she sent a letter to the judge stating that she no longer wished to be represented by Orly Taitz after Taitz filed an appeal without asking Captain Rhodes’ permission.
Captain Rhodes wrote to Judge Land: “I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.”

Judge Land imposed a $20,000 sanction on Ms. Taitz which has already been paid.

Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on the reversing the sanction.


17 posted on 01/10/2011 11:31:25 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

anyone heard from the hawaii gov.. has he released it yet— “crickets”...


18 posted on 01/10/2011 11:34:11 AM PST by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chicken head

anyone heard from the hawaii gov.. has he released it yet— “crickets”...

Under Hawaii law, he can’t release it unilaterally. He needs both an Attorney General and a Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health to do that and neither of his nominees for those positions has been confirmed by the state Senate yet.


19 posted on 01/10/2011 11:40:01 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Actually, not, although Orly thought so.

Orly Taitz’s client, Captain Rhodes, did not appeal the dismissal of the original suit, so the only issue before the Court was Judge Land’s sanction against Orly. Orly filed all sorts of briefs trying to bring the eligibility issue up, but that issue was not and could not have been before the Supreme Court in this case. (The eligibility issue was before the Supreme Court in 8 or 9 previous cases, all of which were denied without comment or dissent, and will again be before the Court this Friday in the Hollister case, which will meet with the same fate.)


I was going with Orly’s fondest dream! Justicesw= Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas decide that they want Obama out and agree to take the law into their own hands. ;-)


20 posted on 01/10/2011 11:43:26 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

To you and I the additional points raised by Taitz in this filing make sense. To the court I’m sure it looks like an end run intent on bringing the legal issues concerning Obama’s legitimacy to the court on the fast track. It seems they bristled and rejected that attempt.

I think there are compelling issues here. What is more important than having a legitimate head of our national government? Is it of prime importance to validate all actions of a sitting president, or is it more important to recognize him despite his not being vetted?

I cannot fathom the mindset that reasons this not one of the most important matters in our nation at this moment. And yet, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the court on letter of the law grounds. But if I do defend the court here, then what other recourse is there? Where do those of my stripe get our day in court? How can we stop a rogue president once he is seated?

If this cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, who will advance this issue? It’s as if this issue were caught in-between different dimensions, and couldn’t be recognized by either.

The inability of citizens to get this matter addressed appropriately and fully, will destroy respect for our government. It has in large part shaken mine considerably. It is entirely possible an illegal alien is sitting in the White House. He may not have been a natural born child. He may also have renounced his U. S. Citizenship to attend school in Asia. Does this matter? Do we care? Is our Constitution absolutely worthless to us? What protects us if it is invalid? And if this matter can’t be addressed, then it has been invalidated.

If we have come to the place in our nation that a man can fraudulently become president, and nobody will stand up to him, then our nation is more of a pipe dream than a reality, the rule of law is dead to us, and a slow boil anarchy is upon us at this time.

Nevermind SCOTUS, this isn’t important. Sorry to bother you. Just go back to sleep. I’ll defend you on the merits as our nation sinks into the primordial muck.

Que the Wicked Witch of the West’s honor guard music here...

Oh eee oh, oh oh...

Now we know where the flying monkey’s roost, and it isn’t on John and Jane America’s keyboards you numskulls.

It’s in our courts and our most honored halls of governance.

Why should we respect you? You flick your buggers on us.


21 posted on 01/10/2011 11:50:25 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Orly Taitz was never on the birthers’ side. She’s a lunatic attention whore. She couldn’t properly file a legal brief if Chief Justice John Roberts dictated it to her word for word. Her freak show kept the public’s attention on her antics. She bears significant responsibility for destroying the credibility of the eligibility issue.


22 posted on 01/10/2011 11:56:00 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

“Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years...”

Are You Serious?


23 posted on 01/10/2011 11:56:16 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Shocka!!


24 posted on 01/10/2011 11:57:36 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

“Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years...”

Are You Serious?


25 posted on 01/10/2011 11:58:59 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. I remembered that she had done some things that made me think she was a kook, but couldn’t remember the particulars.

You may think the judge is treasonous (and hell, they may be), but it’s not going to get your case reconsidered on the merits, to tell him/her they are. Telling them they are will only destroy your own credibility. And sadly, Taitz did that here.

Then making false charges on top of it? Dumb dumb dumb...

Chalk one up for Obama due to her actions alone.

Those who disagree with me on that point, please think how much better it would have been if she were appealing the dismissal of the judge on it’s merits, rather than the $20k fine on it’s merits.


26 posted on 01/10/2011 11:59:44 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well said indeed. Your post sums it all up the a patriotic conservative sees it. Like you, I don’t understand the mindset of those who deflect, minimize or otherwise attempt to derail this issue. We citizens DO have a right to know who is occupying the Oval Office. We have every right to see his records. For instance, I have read that he applied to Occidental as a foreign national. Why is there even a question about it? Why doesn’t he release that info, and let us see it for ourselves?

His contempt for the people who pay his salary and finance his lavish lifestyle goes beyond anything I have ever seen, save in a tinpot dictator. Fortunately I believe the truth will come out. We just have to keep pushing for it every way we can, and in the end we will succeed.


27 posted on 01/10/2011 11:59:47 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM; garybob

The first to fail when a democracy collapses will be the Court of Law.


28 posted on 01/10/2011 12:06:34 PM PST by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

To you and I the additional points raised by Taitz in this filing make sense. To the court I’m sure it looks like an end run intent on bringing the legal issues concerning Obama’s legitimacy to the court on the fast track. It seems they bristled and rejected that attempt.

I think there are compelling issues here. What is more important than having a legitimate head of our national government? Is it of prime importance to validate all actions of a sitting president, or is it more important to recognize him despite his not being vetted?

I cannot fathom the mindset that reasons this not one of the most important matters in our nation at this moment. And yet, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the court on letter of the law grounds. But if I do defend the court here, then what other recourse is there? Where do those of my stripe get our day in court? How can we stop a rogue president once he is seated?

If this cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, who will advance this issue? It’s as if this issue were caught in-between different dimensions, and couldn’t be recognized by either.

The inability of citizens to get this matter addressed appropriately and fully, will destroy respect for our government. It has in large part shaken mine considerably. It is entirely possible an illegal alien is sitting in the White House. He may not have been a natural born child. He may also have renounced his U. S. Citizenship to attend school in Asia. Does this matter? Do we care? Is our Constitution absolutely worthless to us? What protects us if it is invalid? And if this matter can’t be addressed, then it has been invalidated.

If we have come to the place in our nation that a man can fraudulently become president, and nobody will stand up to him, then our nation is more of a pipe dream than a reality, the rule of law is dead to us, and a slow boil anarchy is upon us at this time.

Nevermind SCOTUS, this isn’t important. Sorry to bother you. Just go back to sleep. I’ll defend you on the merits as our nation sinks into the primordial muck.

Que the Wicked Witch of the West’s honor guard music here...

Oh eee oh, oh oh...

Now we know where the flying monkey’s roost, and it isn’t on John and Jane America’s keyboards you numskulls.

It’s in our courts and our most honored halls of governance.

Why should we respect you? You flick your buggers on us.


In my humble opinion, one US District Court Judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it very succinctly and entirely correctly: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama”

If issues of Obama’s eligibility are important, any prosectuing attorney in this nation can convene a Grand Jury investigation and subpoena documents and witnesses.
Additionally, Congress can convene its own investigation into the matter and issue subpoenas and compel testimony as well.
To date, no grand jury investigation has occurred in any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot and there hasn’t even been a call for a congressional investigation.


29 posted on 01/10/2011 12:14:17 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Ted Kennedy began the serious destruction of the courts by turning Judicial hearings into anti-conservative slime-and-smear/hate fests. I wish no one evil—no one—but I would hate to have that as my legacy. [Part of the legacy, anyway; wholesale illegal immigration, rampant abortion—including partial birth—and plenty more destructive stuff to round it off.]


30 posted on 01/10/2011 12:22:07 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I totally agree


31 posted on 01/10/2011 12:28:12 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

stfu she is very courageous, you are an ass


32 posted on 01/10/2011 12:29:24 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

“Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama” “

Excellent point. This is a fine example of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. The Constitution gives Congress this authority, and courts are wisely deferring to the legislative branch.


33 posted on 01/10/2011 12:39:13 PM PST by saltus (God's Will be done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Somehow telling anyone on this board to STFU seems to me the antithesis of what FR is all about. If you like Orly so be it .....but I think you run the risk of having your dentures subpoenaed


34 posted on 01/10/2011 12:44:33 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I should have included you in my comment #34


35 posted on 01/10/2011 12:46:09 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

You’ve hit the nail on the head.


36 posted on 01/10/2011 12:51:43 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
In my humble opinion, one US District Court Judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it very succinctly and entirely correctly: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Having said what I already have, it may surprise you that I agree with you here.  I recognize what the Constitutional merits are here.  Still, there are grave shortcomings to those Constitutional merits aren't there. And this case is a case that reaveals the extreme nature of those shortcomings.  On the one hand you have the real possiblity of having an illigitimate president.  On the other you have the granting of power only to Congress, and it won't get off it's ass to do anything about this.

Here are two issues covered by the U. S. Constitution.

1. The president must be natural born.
2. Only Congress can remove

Congress couldn't care less that issue one above may be in a failed state.

The Courts honor issue two religiously.

So we have one branch of government that may be fraudulent.  We have another sticking to it's guns on the matter of Issue 2, and another AWOL on both.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.

Let's not forget that we presently have two branches of our government that very well could be in violation of Issue 1 listed above.  Namely, the President remains in power even though he may be aware he is not qualified.  Secondly, Congress has taken a pass on honoring their Constiututional duty, have made a granting of permission to break Issue 1 through default, and a failing to make sure the president does serve in accordance with the U. S. Constitution.

The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama”

However, this matter has not been taken up by Congress in the two years since Obama was sworn in.   What recourse is there for citizens?  Neither party will touch it.  So the possibility of us not having a legitimate head of state goes un-addressed.

If issues of Obama’s eligibility are important, any prosectuing attorney in this nation can convene a Grand Jury investigation and subpoena documents and witnesses. Additionally, Congress can convene its own investigation into the matter and issue subpoenas and compel testimony as well. To date, no grand jury investigation has occurred in any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot and there hasn’t even been a call for a congressional investigation.

Yep, you've laid it out very clearly.  And about all you have proven, is that two years on, we may very well have a rogue president and there isn't anything any citizen can do to get this addressed.

I recognize that we do not want every Tom, Dick, and Harriet suing the President of the United States for whatever reason they come up with, but on a matter of Constitutionality, namely, "Who is in control of our nuclear football, and is he a treasonous bastard or not?" this should be a question even one citizen could force an answer on.

If it's a Constitutional matter, I should be able to file a grievance with my Representative that would cause an immediate review on Capital Hill.  And if I am not satisfied with the evidence that is presented to me at the end of quick review, I should be able to force a more in depth review.  All Constitutional grounds merits or requirements would HAVE TO BE MET.

Allowing a stonewalling of this for over two years makes this a banana republic.  And right now, we have a president that is governing like a banana republic's head of state.

37 posted on 01/10/2011 12:57:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

What good has Orly Taitz done on this issue?


38 posted on 01/10/2011 12:59:39 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: saltus

The Constitution only gives Congress the right to remove the president over high crimes and misdemeanors. Ineligibility for office wouldn’t fall under these categories unless Obama committed a crime in the process of declaring his eligibility. The judiciary still has the power to address questions arising under the Constitution. Addressing Obama’s eligibility does inherently mean removing him from office. Judge Carter made an excuse ... a poor excuse for not addressing the questions before his court.


39 posted on 01/10/2011 1:06:12 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I think you're missing the point of a representative government.

You absolutely have a right to petition your representative about whatever you want. Your representative, however, does not take orders from you and is not obligated to act on your petition. Representatives routinely ignore all kinds of stuff from their constituents, sometimes for good reason.

What you are struggling with is a common problem constituents have. Your representative does not share your concern on this issue. That may seem annoying and unfair, but it is a legitimate outcome in our system of governance. You are free to vote against that representative in the next election, or even run against them yourself if you so desire.

At some point, if hundreds of representatives, including those seated after the 2010 elections, indicate to multiple constituents they do not share this concern, one should perhaps reexamine the factual details of one’s own premise. Alternatively, one can petition one’s state legislature to put in place laws requiring eligibility verification for 2012.

40 posted on 01/10/2011 1:34:47 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
What good has Orly Taitz done on this issue?

Comedic gold. A very rich, and rare, vein.

41 posted on 01/10/2011 1:37:59 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Having said what I already have, it may surprise you that I agree with you here. I recognize what the Constitutional merits are here. Still, there are grave shortcomings to those Constitutional merits aren’t there. And this case is a case that reaveals the extreme nature of those shortcomings. On the one hand you have the real possiblity of having an illigitimate president. On the other you have the granting of power only to Congress, and it won’t get off it’s ass to do anything about this.

Here are two issues covered by the U. S. Constitution.

1. The president must be natural born.
2. Only Congress can remove

Congress couldn’t care less that issue one above may be in a failed state.

The Courts honor issue two religiously.

So we have one branch of government that may be fraudulent. We have another sticking to it’s guns on the matter of Issue 2, and another AWOL on both.

Let’s not forget that we presently have two branches of our government that very well could be in violation of Issue 1 listed above. Namely, the President remains in power even though he may be aware he is not qualified. Secondly, Congress has taken a pass on honoring their Constiututional duty, have made a granting of permission to break Issue 1 through default, and a failing to make sure the president does serve in accordance with the U. S. Constitution.

However, this matter has not been taken up by Congress in the two years since Obama was sworn in. What recourse is there for citizens? Neither party will touch it. So the possibility of us not having a legitimate head of state goes un-addressed.

Yep, you’ve laid it out very clearly. And about all you have proven, is that two years on, we may very well have a rogue president and there isn’t anything any citizen can do to get this addressed.

I recognize that we do not want every Tom, Dick, and Harriet suing the President of the United States for whatever reason they come up with, but on a matter of Constitutionality, namely, “Who is in control of our nuclear football, and is he a treasonous bastard or not?” this should be a question even one citizen could force an answer on.

If it’s a Constitutional matter, I should be able to file a grievance with my Representative that would cause an immediate review on Capital Hill. And if I am not satisfied with the evidence that is presented to me at the end of quick review, I should be able to force a more in depth review. All Constitutional grounds merits or requirements would HAVE TO BE MET.

Allowing a stonewalling of this for over two years makes this a banana republic. And right now, we have a president that is governing like a banana republic’s head of state.


I think you are confusing winning in Court with having one’s day in Court. Thus far there have been about 90 adjudicated lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. These lawsuits have been heard in local courts, in state courts, in federal courts, in state and federal appeals courts and 10 times now at the Supreme Court of the United States.

More than 120 different judges and justices (counting multi-judge panels and the nine Supreme Court Justices) have had a chance to read legal briefs on this issue. Not one single judge has agreed with any plaintiff that Obama MIGHT possibly be ineligible.

As I already said, any prosecuting attorney in a state with a grand jury system could investigate this issue. None have.

Every serious constitutional challenge regarding the presidency over the last fifty years of American history has been investigated by a Grand Jury: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan Scandal, Whitewater-Filegate-Travelgate-Vince Foster, the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit, Monica Lewinsky, and the CIA leaks-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby affair, plus many others all warranted a Grand Jury investigation.

Any House of any state legislature where Obama’s name was on the ballot could investigate this issue. None have.

Any member of Congress could make a speech from the floor of the House or the Well of the Senate asking for a Special Counsel or a Congressional investigation. None have.

In my humble opinion, the reason that none of the actions listed above have occurred is because of the definitive statements of the REPUBLICAN administration in Hawaii that just left office and had control of Obama’s birth documents from February 10, 2007 when he announced that he was running for President until December 6, 2010 when that administration left office.

The two most definitive statements from Hawaii come from the Director of Health: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.” July 27, 2009

And the statement of Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii: “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again, I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the President was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by the people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”—
Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle, May 2, 2010

Now those two statements may not be definitive to you but they have definitely proven to be definitive to judges, justices and members of state legislatures and the US Congress.

Just last week: “The state of Hawaii says that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Representative John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives


42 posted on 01/10/2011 1:42:34 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Fundamentally this is about preserving the rule of law and the Constitution upon which it rests.

We likely have an ineligible usurper occupying the White House. How can we as citizens get this fairly and properly reviewed? Every avenue is blocked: the media ( conservative and Marxist), courts, legistures ( state and federal), and even our highest military officers have allowed their lower level officers to twist in the wind.

To often the Obots will post, “Well...To get rid of Obama...” This is NOT about getting rid of Obama. If the man is legitimately a natural born citizen he deserves his place in the White House.

However...What good are laws and degrees from prestigious law schools if, in the end, our Constitution is shredded and the rule of law disintegrates like used toilet paper?

43 posted on 01/10/2011 1:45:17 PM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Fundamentally this is about preserving the rule of law and the Constitution upon which it rests.

We likely have an ineligible usurper occupying the White House. How can we as citizens get this fairly and properly reviewed? Every avenue is blocked: the media ( conservative and Marxist), courts, legislatures ( state and federal), and even our highest military officers have allowed their lower level officers to twist in the wind.

To often the Obots will post, “Well...To get rid of Obama...” This is NOT about getting rid of Obama. If the man is legitimately a natural born citizen he deserves his place in the White House.

However...What good are laws and degrees from prestigious law schools if, in the end, our Constitution is shredded and the rule of law disintegrates like used toilet paper?

44 posted on 01/10/2011 1:45:27 PM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

That’s how I see it.


45 posted on 01/10/2011 1:49:43 PM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Yeah, but I’ve never been much of a fan of slapstick.


46 posted on 01/10/2011 1:52:51 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The Constitution only gives Congress the right to remove the president over high crimes and misdemeanors. Ineligibility for office wouldn’t fall under these categories unless Obama committed a crime in the process of declaring his eligibility. The judiciary still has the power to address questions arising under the Constitution. Addressing Obama’s eligibility does inherently mean removing him from office. Judge Carter made an excuse ... a poor excuse for not addressing the questions before his court.


Congress is left with complete and total discretion to determine what actions of a president constitute a “high crime” or a “misdemeanor.” Those terms are not otherwise defined in the Constitution.


47 posted on 01/10/2011 1:54:08 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; DoughtyOne
On nearly **every** thread you post the same carefully masturbated verbal drivel from Lingle and Fukino.

Well....If it is soooooooooo plainly evident that Obama is a natural born citizen, he should promptly release **all** of the **best** evidence that would prove or disprove his natural born citizenship.

Obama does not because he can not!

jamese777...I suggest that you view the Yuri Bezmenov videos. Please remember that the very first people the communists lined up against the wall and shot were the Useful Idiots.

The American public deserves to KNOW with the **best** evidence, especially our military, that we have a natural born citizen sitting as president. Without a sound foundation of rule of law based upon our Constitution we edge closer and closer to the dystopia predicted by Yuri Bezmenov.

48 posted on 01/10/2011 1:56:01 PM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The Constitution allows for the vice president to assume the role of president when said has president has failed to qualify for the position. Said president can also voluntarily step down when it’s discovered he is not actually constitutionally eligible to hold the position he occupied. A court can address this issue without breaching the so-called political question doctrine.


49 posted on 01/10/2011 2:09:45 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
And the statement of Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii: “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again, I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the President was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. ..."

Maybe you can explain why, in the process of campaigning for McCain in early October 2008, that Lingle did NOT have her health director release a public statement until Oct. 31, four days prior to the election. Lingle evidently didn't know anything about Obama's birth records during the time she was campaigning for McCain. Further, Lingle told a naughty, naughty lie, because the public statement on Oct. 31 did NOT say Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital NOR did it even say Obama was born in Hawaii. Why do you keep spreading this thoroughly debunked falsehood??

50 posted on 01/10/2011 2:15:32 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson