Skip to comments.Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
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 Peopleover 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.
“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.
But the judicial branch cannot possibly defend the people's constitutional liberties by itself engaging in extraconstitutional/unconstitutional actions - and make no mistake, a judicial order to remove a sitting President would clearly violate Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Let’s bet on the other parts of the constitution Dear Leader will violate next. I say, it will be the free speech rights of his political enemies.
I’ve been wondering for a long about what witnesses she was going to use, IE:expert witnesses etc.. If she asked them to lie, she needs to be let go..and what credibility left she had would be completely gone.
If so, he will do absolutely NOTHING about this matter.
If that's what you want, you get a similar result. There are few facts supporting this case. Mainly lots of speculation, supposition and wild-eyed nuttiness.
The only relevant fact is that BHO’s father wasn't a citizen. And that boat has sailed.
Indeed, sir. Let us all bid welcome to the Fourth Reich.
Or the RNC, or perhaps even Sarah Palin. Of course, while they would have standing, the other issue of justiciability wouldn't be met because Obama has already been installed in Office. As Carter points out in his ruling, the Congress is the only one that can remedy this now.
But, in 2012, his eligibility could be challenged by one of his Democrat opponents in the primary - unlikely sure, but legally possible.
The "mob" in this case is Orly and her followers.
That part did not sound like the same Judge Carter who presided over the Oct. 5th hearing.
Comparing the Judge's signature on the 5 September 8 Order setting the Scheduling Conferance to the on this document, they appear *Identical*. Now it's possible that the Clerk just pastes a copy of the Judges signature into these documents, and if so, then they would be identical, but if he signs them individually, they would not be identical. Very similar, but not identical. (I copied the signatures out of the PDF files, and then paste them one above the other in a Word document to make the comparson easier.)
hmmmmmmmmmm... wouldn't this give Orly standing as both zeros are disbarred?
Yeah, I know I'm being silly, I'm just tired (as many are) of all the ways people lie around the truth and how we are ALWAYS told what we cannot do.
Time is now to find out what we can do. Time to create laws for things we can do and not what we cannot.
Depends on which boob you believe more, Orly or that Lucas Smith guy. Lucas Smith claims that Orly Taitz Made Him Commit Perjury
And the Constitution states that the only way to remove a President from office is through the impeachment process. For a judge to issue an injunction removing a sitting President from office would be nothing short of judicial tyranny.
Terrorists and illegal aliens.
I guess you’ll be tapping the rum extra early tonight, huh?
AFTER-birther troll alert aka Obama supporter.
In Judge Carter’s opinion,
- prior to Obama’s swearing-in, Alan Keyes DID have standing
- after Obama’s swearing in, Obama IS POTUS and can only be removed by Congress. Only Congress has standing, as is outlined in the Constitution.
We at Free Republic view Obama’s eligibility to be in question, therefore the swearing-in was questionable. Judge Carter views the swearing in ceremony as the end-all.
OTOH - I think it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run for POTUS in 2012 without disclosing his BC. As soon as Obama officially declares himself a candidate for 2012, anyone who decides to run for POTUS can file suit for proof of eligibility.
“...But, in 2012, his eligibility could be challenged by one of his Democrat opponents in the primary...”
How about one of his Republican opponents as well? They would have an equal stake in the matter.
“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.”
The judge is correct. And you are incorrect.
They practice judicial tyranny on a daily basis. Judges overturn the electorate’s wishes as a matter of practice.
I suspect the Judge may have been paid a visit from one of 0bama’s “Truth Squads” and given an offer he couldn’t refuse.
I really doubt Orly asked anyone to lie. Look at how she is discredited right here on FR.
Yes, of course and the RNC could challenge it. I didn't include it in my post to you because I mentioned it up-thread.
I suggest you read that again. Judge Carter noted that Keyes claim to damages, since he received less than one percent of the votes cast, was "too speculative to establish standing."
...- after Obamas swearing in, Obama IS POTUS and can only be removed by Congress. Only Congress has standing, as is outlined in the Constitution.
He didn't say that either.
So, to you, enforcement of The Constitution, is akin to placating a "howling mob"? Something tells me you'd like to be an 0bama groupie.
Funny, that part wasn't in the post I responded to.
Your post reflected your approval of a judge upholding the very same doccument that zer0 is shredding and stuffing up our collective arses