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 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 651-670 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
Judge Carter dealt with the whole issue of standing long before he mentioned the election. And the inauguration didn't factor into any of them. What the inauguration did impact was the question of redressability.

Orly maintained that she was suing Obama as an individual, not a citizen and had filed her suit before the election even though she didn't manage to serve him until August. She was attempting to time travel.

401 posted on 10/29/2009 2:45:41 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"I don’t have to go back and read anything."

No, wouldn't want to look at something that might prove you wrong, would you?

Well here is what I was replying to, in part...

"Isn't there an upper limit to the deception faux conservatives will be granted at FR any more, Jim? This poster is one of several who claim to be conservatives yet tout this crap ...etc...etc"

And here you are to pile on some more.

But noooo, I'm the one whining and biching at other freepers. Right.

402 posted on 10/29/2009 2:46:37 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Oops - should have been president, not citizen


403 posted on 10/29/2009 2:47:25 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Your job is posting here on FR.


404 posted on 10/29/2009 2:48:44 PM 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 358 | View Replies]

To: BP2; LucyT

Bp2, who will listen? Who will care?


405 posted on 10/29/2009 2:51:00 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

I believe there is a rule about what not to do if someone clearly asks you to not post to them. You might want to find out what that rule is.


406 posted on 10/29/2009 2:56:06 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko
Welcome to the Free Republic! I would like to recommend that you read the following threads, where you will find some very informative information. Enjoy your stay and remember the golden rule.


407 posted on 10/29/2009 2:56:27 PM PDT by Brown Deer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko
What is your position regarding the eligibility of Obama and what your feelings about his appointments, that answer only to him?
408 posted on 10/29/2009 2:57:39 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate; All

Your (Drew68) job is posting here on FR.

Likely one of those new 30,000 Stimulus jobs ...


409 posted on 10/29/2009 2:58:13 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

LoL


410 posted on 10/29/2009 2:58:31 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: deport

The flaw in Judge Carters argument is here:

“..to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people..”

At the time of service Obama had not been appointed President, and the number of people voting for him does not matter if he is not a NBC. Grounds for appeal.


411 posted on 10/29/2009 2:59:43 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SunYatSen.jpg


412 posted on 10/29/2009 3:03:09 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: mlo
I'm the one whining and biching at other freepers. Right.

You've already proven it! Make that "Conservative' freepers - not the jokers that you align yourself with. There is NOTHING more to be said - Case closed.
413 posted on 10/29/2009 3:04:23 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
I just noticed that the oath of enlistment as quoted in the ruling is *wrong*. It leaves out the the word "the President of" as in "obey the orders of the President of the United States", instead saying "obey the orders of the United States".

The "oath" cut and pasted from the ruling:

I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The oath from 10 USC 502:

“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Clerk messed up pretty badly there.

The officers oath is specified in Title 5 section 3331 It's not in Title 10 (Armed Forces) because it's not unique to military officers, rather it applies to individuals, "except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services", and is Constitutionally required by Article VI of the Constitution.

414 posted on 10/29/2009 3:05:29 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; All
who will listen? Who will care?

With the correct Case Law argued — and in the proper Venue —
in the end, I still think only HERE can it be properly addressed:


415 posted on 10/29/2009 3:05:38 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

The Golden Rule would be to treat others as you would wish to be treated. If someone doesn’t want me to post to them, then they should not post to me, especially with an insult.


416 posted on 10/29/2009 3:06:11 PM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
"The flaw in Judge Carters argument is here:"

The judge directly addressed your points in the decision.

417 posted on 10/29/2009 3:07:01 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Photobucket

All hail Taitz! All hail Taitz! Oh say can you see, by the dawn's Orly light...

418 posted on 10/29/2009 3:08:15 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Show me a quote.


419 posted on 10/29/2009 3:09:14 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
At the time of service Obama had not been appointed President, and the number of people voting for him does not matter if he is not a NBC. Grounds for appeal.

Orly didn't attempt service until inauguration day and didn't get it done until August.

420 posted on 10/29/2009 3:09:24 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

I never said the left would eliminate him, I said IMO he would be eliminated. It would be by those who orchestrated the changes. If they don’t and he is removed, all the changes will be backed out. If he is killed, those programs stay and Biden takes over per succession of an assassinated President. That is my point. It has nothing to do with what the left or right think, it is an agenda above us all.


421 posted on 10/29/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
"Grounds for appeal."

You're going to base an appeal on dicta?

The chances of prevailing on an appeal that is based solely on dicta within a judicial opinion, are exactly 0.0%.

422 posted on 10/29/2009 3:09:43 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
This kind of hyperbole is, at best, unhelpful.

So is denying folks access to the next to last box. That's not helpful at all.

423 posted on 10/29/2009 3:10:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Can Orly finish working on my teeth before she appeals?

Don't worry. She'll have plenty more time to devote to her dental practice after she's been disbarred.

424 posted on 10/29/2009 3:10:51 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
At the time of service Obama had not been appointed President, and the number of people voting for him does not matter if he is not a NBC. Grounds for appeal.

The defendants had not been properly served until July. Long after Obama was sworn in.

425 posted on 10/29/2009 3:10:52 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: BP2

I think D’Onfrio might be able to get there, but they will not hear the case.


426 posted on 10/29/2009 3:11:50 PM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Well then Orly has nothing to worry about and she’ll win on appeal, wont’ she? What is the date of appointment are you using? He was elected by the Electoral College in Dec. 08 and the votes certified by the Congress in Jan. and sworn in Jan. 20 with another swearing on Jan. 21.

The ‘elected by the people’ was only one of other things written in the section by the Judge.


427 posted on 10/29/2009 3:12:08 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
If they don’t and he is removed, all the changes will be backed out.

No, that is not true. Read up on the de factor officer doctrine.
428 posted on 10/29/2009 3:16:53 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

When I see an obscenity like you or the other obamanoids, I name it. Next question?


429 posted on 10/29/2009 3:17:23 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
The oaths are different, but unless you are an Officer who swore in enlisted personnel on enlistment, or re-enlistment, you might not have ever noticed the differences.

Oh, please, officer are *taught* the differences. At least I was. I also gave briefings, to mixed enlisted and officer groups, about the need to disobey unlawful orders, that is that the enlisted oath to "obey orders" only means "lawful orders".

430 posted on 10/29/2009 3:18:23 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Why not judicial review of a presidential election if the candidate might not have been constitutionally qualified?

The Court pointed out in its opinion that the outcome may have been different had plaintiffs not waited around until after Obama was sworn in to bring their claim. Yet another screw up from plaintiffs' counsel.

431 posted on 10/29/2009 3:21:11 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

No. Judge Carter induced Orly to do a revised service. It was never found that the original service was faulty. The Defence and Judge want it so, cos then they could treat Obama as a sitting President, and not as nomineee.


432 posted on 10/29/2009 3:26:09 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No. Judge Carter induced Orly to do a revised service. It was never found that the original service was faulty. The Defence and Judge want it so, cos then they could treat Obama as a sitting President, and not as nomineee.


433 posted on 10/29/2009 3:26:59 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: deport

21st Jan he completed a correct Oath of Office.


434 posted on 10/29/2009 3:28:03 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: vikk

OK.

That one’s funny.


435 posted on 10/29/2009 3:28:22 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: jayg
Judges must follow the law and they can not decide to ignore the Constitution which gives the power to remove a sitting president SOLELY to the congress.

Actually it says that the House has the "sole Power of Impeachment", and that the Senate has the "sole Power to try all Impeachments". But it also says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It no where says that ineligible persons can *be* President. If someone is not eligible, they can't be President, in spite of any oath taking or electing to the contrary. If they aren't President, then Impeachment cannot be the proper remedy.

Secondly, which of the causes for impeachment listed above does "not eligible?" come under? It's a not a crime to not be eligible, not even a misdomeanor. It's not Treason to not be eligible, and there have been no formal accusations of Bribery.

436 posted on 10/29/2009 3:30:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
At this point, the only body with the Constitutional right to address that question is congress - not the court.

Congress has no rights, only powers. They have the power to impeach and try a President, but not an ineligible usurper. They could hold hearings on the matter, issue subpoenas and so forth. But they won't.

437 posted on 10/29/2009 3:33:24 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

438 posted on 10/29/2009 3:35:50 PM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
It’s just too bad that everyone that knew Obama wasn’t eligible before he was elected didn’t follow the guidelines of the constitution.

Guidlines? It's bright line law, by it's own terms, the Supreme Law.

439 posted on 10/29/2009 3:36:28 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Don't worry. She'll have plenty more time to devote to her dental practice after she's been disbarred.

No, I'll tell you what she needs to do.

She needs to make a TV show modeled on "Judge Judy," called "Judge Orly."

She judges civil disputes, and then gives a anesthesia-free root-canal to whoever loses.

Can you imagine the ratings she'd get for that?

I'd watch it!

440 posted on 10/29/2009 3:39:53 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Standing is a very well defined judicial concept.

The concept is well defined, but the rules seem to be constantly changing. Generally in the direction of "no standing" for those whose interest, real though it is, is general rather than specific. It wasn't always that way.

They find "standing" for non-citizen, non-resident, aliens captured on the battlefield, but not for US citizens wishing to see that the Constitution be enforced?

That sticks in a lot of craws. Mine included.

441 posted on 10/29/2009 3:40:11 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Then get yourself detained on the battlefield and push for discovery.


442 posted on 10/29/2009 3:42:11 PM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“So is denying folks access to the next to last box. That’s not helpful at all.”

Who’s been denied this?


443 posted on 10/29/2009 3:43:10 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Since when do Conservatives advocate rewriting the Constitution?

To be fair, these birthers who call themselves "conservatives" and, most laughably, "patriots" weren't looking to have the Constitution re-written. Instead, they were looking for an activist judiciary that views the Constitution as a "living document" from which to manufacture favorable rulings out of thin air and reverse a presidential election because they weren't happy with the results.

They thought they had found such an activist in Judge Carter. No doubt today is a setback for their wholly undemocratic and un-American crusade though I suspect they will soon try and spin things differently.

444 posted on 10/29/2009 3:43:16 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Before the inauguration. Not now.

Why only before? There is no right to run for nor to be elected President. What specific injury did McCain suffer? No McCain would not have had standing either, although it is nice to pretend that he would have, if only he'd acted "in time". But alas, he didn't, and so the case is now moot. Somewhat like Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution.

445 posted on 10/29/2009 3:59:28 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Reads to me like the judge opened some doors in the future but also sidestepped matters out of fear and tremendous pressure based on “standing”; for example, not much wording on Hawaiian loopholes and revealing a long form birth certificate in limited discovery then he could have dismissed the case and let Congress deal with it.

Anyway bring on the next round. There’s more to come. Obozo the clown isn’t out of the woods yet.


446 posted on 10/29/2009 4:00:23 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks; BigGuy22
Dear FRiends: If you have the photo of that Chinese leader with the Hawaiian COLB, could you please post it as well as any other info. related to the foreigners with Hawaiian COLBs to “BigGuy22”?

It's not that hard to find if you google "Sun Yat-Sen birth certificate Hawaii". But it's not so clear why that document is relevant since it was issued 55 years before Hawaii became a state.

447 posted on 10/29/2009 4:01:32 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Because, after all, the other appeals have been so successful...”

I agree but this judge was completely out of line. I don’t envision any judge hearing the case and if they do it will just be a matter of courtesy. This is too hot for any of them to handle. They are more afraid of this issue than an issue involving negativity toward muslims.


448 posted on 10/29/2009 4:04:19 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Release Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and let him and his family get on with their lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ

Likewise Judge Carter, nobody gives a rat’s ass about your opinions on how a percentage voted for Zero or how a mother would be dissappointed her son was ineligible. Your worries about removal mean nothing,

was FRAUD COMMITTED OR NOT? Is Zero A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BORN ON U.S. SOIL?

DIDN’T THINK SO YOU FRIGGIN COWARD.


449 posted on 10/29/2009 4:11:26 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court has ruled that: "The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.

But the case you actually linked to, Ryder v. US 515 U.S. 177 (1995), would seem more on point. Inthat case they ruled that the actions of the Court below were not valid de facto.

The reasoning was that the claim was "based on the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution--a claim that there has been a "trespass upon the executive power of appointment," McDowell, supra, at 598, rather than a misapplication of a statute "

That sounds a lot more like the case of an ineligible office holder than the usual de facto office holder who was holding the office in violation of a statue that had been misapplied or misinterpreted.

450 posted on 10/29/2009 4:21:58 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 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