Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
That's a joke, right? It's on PACER.
And, it appears that the Smith declaration alleging Orly asked him to commit perjury was "real" and it was delivered. Carter references it, and perhaps another deceleration that Orly allegedly suborned perjury. He writes in his order that the court is "deeply concerned" about it.
Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
It’s a damned shame. I am beginning to believe that no judge wants to do anything about this, no matter how valid the arguments are. No good lawyer wants to touch this because they may be “Fort Marcy’ed”. Unless this is approched from some other angle, we are stuck with zerØ for the rest of his reign. This may sound defeatist but it’s not to come across that way. No person in this country has “standing”. That’s what the courts are all saying. We are being told to sit down, shut up, and deal with it.
The truth WILL eventually come out about zerØ. When it does, and it says he is not a natural born citizen, ilegally holding the office of POTUS, there will be many that will be held complicit in the most massive fraud in US history. The sad part about that is they will ALL get away with it with no penalties metted out. NONE!!!!! The Constitution can be used next time one has to go to the bathroom.
According to this ruling (which, on its face, appears to be legally sound), there are 2 ways:
1) File a challenge to a candidate's qualifications before the candidate is elected; or
2) Go through the impeachment process.
The reality is, at this point, Barack Obama has been elected and sworn in as President of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President of the United States may only be removed from office through the impeachment process. It doesn't matter what high crime or misdemeanor, or treasonous act, the President commits, impeachment is the only Constitutional way to get a President out of office.
He said exactly the opposite.
ROTFLMAO!!!
“next step, Quo Warranto..”
Well, good luck with that.
I missed something here. What is the argument that Obama shouldn’t have been allowed to run for the Senate? I thought Keyes was a party to this suit because he’d been a (minor) candidate for the presidency in 2008.
“...Alan Keyes no longer can demonstrate injury, and thus does not have standing....”
That raises an excellent question, namely, just WHO in the hell DOES have standing?
"This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this court"
Yes, it will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and their history suggests very strongly that they will be in full agreement with Judge Carter’s conclusions.
All of us were lied to about Obama's qualifications, we were told he was qualified, he was middle of the road, he was a uniter.
Run the election again and he would be bitching with Algore (but I'm not sure that idiot from Arizona would have been acceptable either).
I suggest you read the entire decision rather than just the last paragraph. He agreed with every ground for dismissal that the defense raised - lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, everything. There is nothing in that decision to grant an appeal on. Taitz and Kreep failed in every way possible to make their case.
I want the Judge to show me in The Constitution where it even mentions "popularly elected". Also, does this mean that because the sheeple, or a howling mob deems that something is OK, The Constitution can be dismissed?
I believe the judiciary is in place to interpret and enforce the law. Not make the law. If the "over sixty-nine million people" want to remove the Natural Born provision from The Constitution, they are welcome to go through the amendment process to do so. Until then, it is the law.
If it can be proven that Orly got someone to lie in court papers, she will be looking at more than fines. Someone up thread claims Carter is accusing Orly of perjury in his decision. I hope for her sake, she did not do that.
John McCain.
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.