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

Skip to comments.

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
scribd ^ | 10/29/09 | Judge Carter

Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; carter; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamaisfafraud; obamathugs; orly; orlytaitz; romney4obama; romneyantigop; romneybotshere; romneybotsvsbirthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-670 next last
To: El Gato
"Are we certain this is real? It's not like we haven't seen forgeries and other false documents in these cases."

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.

101 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:00 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
This is what Judge Carter actually wrote:

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.

102 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:05 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

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.


103 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:08 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (ON 1-19-09 GAS WAS, ON AVERAGE IN MEMPHIS, $1.43 A GALLON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

104 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:17 AM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger
If we have no standing....than how is one to overturn a perceived injustice?

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.

105 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:25 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
It looks to me like he gave the plaintiffs wiggle room in the appeal by basing his decision on an idea that 69 million votes rules over the constitution. Wonder if the Supremes would agree with that idea? We are a constitutional Republic - not a democracy. The mob does not rule. The constitution, the high law in the land, rules.
106 posted on 10/29/2009 11:10:46 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
If he stated that the voters trump the Constitution (in effect), then he’s not the upright jurist everyone was saying. Mob rule.

He said exactly the opposite.

107 posted on 10/29/2009 11:11:52 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

ROTFLMAO!!!


108 posted on 10/29/2009 11:12:35 AM PDT by LaybackLenny (Sarah Palin can see the left's heads explode from her house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

“next step, Quo Warranto..”

Well, good luck with that.


109 posted on 10/29/2009 11:12:42 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bukkdems

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.


110 posted on 10/29/2009 11:13:29 AM PDT by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kidd

“...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?


111 posted on 10/29/2009 11:13:44 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (ON 1-19-09 GAS WAS, ON AVERAGE IN MEMPHIS, $1.43 A GALLON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
No , But this aroused some interest that a criminal investigation of Orly may be next.

"This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this court"

112 posted on 10/29/2009 11:14:52 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
He said exactly the opposite.

Judge Carter's desire for constitutionality was entirely focused on the separation of powers idea. The constitutionality of Barry in the Oval Office is what I was referring to.


113 posted on 10/29/2009 11:15:24 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: chris37
SO, terrorists and illegal aliens have standing, but citizens, candidates for president, and military personnel do not...

Correct. This is Amerika.
114 posted on 10/29/2009 11:16:14 AM PDT by Canedawg (Sometimes we live no particular way but our own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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.


115 posted on 10/29/2009 11:17:23 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
He stated that over 69 million people wanted

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).

116 posted on 10/29/2009 11:18:54 AM PDT by scgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
It looks to me like he gave the plaintiffs wiggle room in the appeal by basing his decision on an idea that 69 million votes rules over the constitution.

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.

117 posted on 10/29/2009 11:19:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
I paraphrased, but the results are the same - "CASE DISMISSED".

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.

118 posted on 10/29/2009 11:20:07 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (FUBO - When 0bama Fails, Freedom Prevails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


119 posted on 10/29/2009 11:20:34 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
That raises an excellent question, namely, just WHO in the hell DOES have standing?

John McCain.

120 posted on 10/29/2009 11:21:11 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
If the executive and legislative branches are both either violating or facilitating violation of the Constitution, that means the judicial branch is the only remaining defender of the people's constitutional liberties.

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.

121 posted on 10/29/2009 11:22:23 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


122 posted on 10/29/2009 11:22:26 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

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.


123 posted on 10/29/2009 11:22:32 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

124 posted on 10/29/2009 11:22:54 AM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

If so, he will do absolutely NOTHING about this matter.


125 posted on 10/29/2009 11:23:57 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (ON 1-19-09 GAS WAS, ON AVERAGE IN MEMPHIS, $1.43 A GALLON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

126 posted on 10/29/2009 11:25:01 AM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
“Either the facts support the plaintiff’s argument, or they don’t. That’s all the judge should address here.”

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.

127 posted on 10/29/2009 11:25:49 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg

Indeed, sir. Let us all bid welcome to the Fourth Reich.


128 posted on 10/29/2009 11:26:39 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; NCC-1701
"John McCain."

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.

129 posted on 10/29/2009 11:26:59 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Also, does this mean that because the sheeple, or a howling mob deems that something is OK, The Constitution can be dismissed?

The "mob" in this case is Orly and her followers.

130 posted on 10/29/2009 11:28:11 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
He stated that over 69 million people wanted the usurper and he wouldn’t overthrow him.

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.)

131 posted on 10/29/2009 11:28:52 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"If I were a bookie, I'd start taking odds on how long it will take Orly to get disbarred."

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.

132 posted on 10/29/2009 11:28:53 AM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
Someone up thread claims Carter is accusing Orly of perjury in his decision. I hope for her sake, she did not do that.

Depends on which boob you believe more, Orly or that Lucas Smith guy. Lucas Smith claims that Orly Taitz Made Him Commit Perjury

133 posted on 10/29/2009 11:29:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
The constitution, the high law in the land, rules.

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.

134 posted on 10/29/2009 11:29:29 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

Terrorists and illegal aliens.


135 posted on 10/29/2009 11:29:40 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

136 posted on 10/29/2009 11:29:45 AM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

I guess you’ll be tapping the rum extra early tonight, huh?


137 posted on 10/29/2009 11:29:57 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

AFTER-birther troll alert aka Obama supporter.


138 posted on 10/29/2009 11:30:00 AM PDT by stockpirate ("if my thought-dreams could be seen. They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

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.


139 posted on 10/29/2009 11:30:01 AM PDT by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

140 posted on 10/29/2009 11:30:36 AM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“...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.


141 posted on 10/29/2009 11:30:53 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (ON 1-19-09 GAS WAS, ON AVERAGE IN MEMPHIS, $1.43 A GALLON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“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.”


I am concerned about that allegation from Carter as well. If it is true, Orly has cooked her goose. Only Bill Clinton is above the law when it comes to perjury.


142 posted on 10/29/2009 11:31:11 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

Or!

The judge is correct. And you are incorrect.


143 posted on 10/29/2009 11:31:51 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

They practice judicial tyranny on a daily basis. Judges overturn the electorate’s wishes as a matter of practice.


144 posted on 10/29/2009 11:33:08 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


145 posted on 10/29/2009 11:33:14 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (FUBO - When 0bama Fails, Freedom Prevails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

I really doubt Orly asked anyone to lie. Look at how she is discredited right here on FR.


146 posted on 10/29/2009 11:33:33 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
"How about one of his Republican opponents as well?"

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.

147 posted on 10/29/2009 11:33:47 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: kidd
...prior to Obama’s swearing-in, Alan Keyes DID have standing

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 Obama’s 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.

148 posted on 10/29/2009 11:35:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The "mob" in this case is Orly and her followers.

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.

149 posted on 10/29/2009 11:35:37 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (FUBO - When 0bama Fails, Freedom Prevails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob
No , But this aroused some interest that a criminal investigation of Orly may be next. "This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this court"

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

150 posted on 10/29/2009 11:36:10 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Oath keepers + The NRA = FReeRepublic (.com baby))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-670 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