Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
From what I read cursorily of the opinion, Keyes and the other candidate-plaintiffs came closer to standing than any of the others; however, that was knocked out becaue of the timing of the filing of the brief, i.e., after BHO was no longer a candidate or even president-elect, but had already been sworn in. I have to read it more carefully.
Thank you. See post # 529!!!
In the past year, you have posted ONLY on BC threads, harassing and starting fights. You post on no other threads. It’s easy to check people, just go look. You basically were MIA from 2004-2006-2007. Then you came back with a vengeance and for a solid year, have done nothing on FR excpet defend Obongo on the BC threads and start fights. Is that the only topic that interests you? How odd.
In birtherdom, the FRCP, the FRE, US Code, reams of case law and common law and even the Constitution are completely and entirely irrelevant. If you say otherwise, you must be working for Barack Obama in the basement of the White House. Don't waste your time pointing out facts - they won't be listened to.
When the moderator removes my post #309 yet ignores the post of obot deckhand (#320) using as ‘offensive’ language, you can bet there is little reason to continue on FR threads where the speshul obamanoid goonsquad is working freerepublic. Such moderator bias is becoming common of late.
Very interesting! It sounds like there might be some truth to what Lucas is saying.
“The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Per Donofrio:
“Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”
Thanks for posting this update. This is great news! I wonder if Judge Carter read Donofrio’s blog where Leo's theory goes against the prevailing legal pontificating that a president can only be removed by impeachment or the 25A.
In the MOD the DOJ argued that quo warranto couldn't be applied to POTUS at all because the constitution specified that unlike other DC federal office holders the POTUS eligibility was to be handled through the electoral process. Leo's blog explains why he believes this is wrong.
DOJ did not bother to argue (even “in the alternative”) that quo warranto should have been brought in DC because in my view they rejected quo warranto for a president altogether. For some reason Leo was mystified by this omission and dedicated a topic to it.
Leo is one happy guy today, and I am too! Several days ago his blog “went dark” as he had a client and couldn't post on NBC issues. Leo can't solicit but he can hint and he hinted that if a client who had proper quo warranto standing came to him, he would consider taking the case.
My understanding was that the quo warranto client would have the meed the quo warranto “interested party” test of having been personally injured by an action of Obama’s administration while Obama was in office. I believe that Leo said that the IG named Wylie who was fired while investigating a corrupt crony of Obama would qualify for example. War-injured US service personnel would also qualify. See his blog for details.
I know what you mean. Something isn’t right here, getting a creepy feeling, not sure who to trust on here. Probably time to move on out and say adios.
Hey, now you know how it felt to be a Hunter fan in a place that declared itself FredRepublic. LOL
Just ignore it, ain’t worth any aggravation, frankly.
LOL, reread what you wrote. You threw a veritable tantrum because you didn’t like being told that a COLB is proof unless shown to be invalid. All those examples about bars and cops, all foolish attempts to carve your way out of a point of basic law.
I know you imagine yourself able to shake the world with your rhetoric, but let’s face it, no one seems to be buying it — especially in the venues where it really counts.
For example these quotes from the ruling [brackets, font color blue, and bold emphasis are mine]:
- This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.
- Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
- Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel.
- Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
- “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. [Judge now explains how FOIA might be obtained.] FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an “agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
- Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, [this sounds to me like Judge Carter believes that a properly constructed Rico case might have been sufficient to grant standing, jurisdiction, and justiciability as I sense some disappointment and frustration because this is the only time he so plainly chastised her - but then again, I could be wrong, LOL] and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.
I mentioned on an earlier thread that, IMO, a civil case on RICO against Obama, DNC, ACORN, MSM, and Dem leaders seeking documents by subpoena (birth certificate, passports, school records, DNC certification, etc.) as additional evidence showing fraud, collusion and conspiracy could be enough to obtain jurisdiction in any District Court.
Standing might then be easier to obtain showing actual monetary damages, civil rights violations (right to vote, fair elections, intent to defraud through higher taxes and nationalizing select businesses and industries as well as theft, tortious interference with private contracts, etc.). Any executive that has had their pay cut, any auto dealer that lost their dealership, anyone that loses or is in jeopardy of losing their health insurance might qualify.
Justiciability would be simple if requested redress was limited to monetary damages and a finding of Obama not being NBC. Since a District Court can not remove a President from office or declare a President ineligible, that should not be requested. A finding of not being NBC can then be used to pressure Congress for Impeachment or removal of Obama as being unfit for office. Of course we would want this to occur after the new Congress is installed in 2010, which shouldn't be a problem as a RICO trial would probably take at least a year.
How is it judicial tyranny for a judge to refuse to go outside of the constitutionally mandated procedures for removing a president?
Perot may have wanted to win, but I'm sure it was at least a secondary objective to be sure that Bush did not.
I don’t like Wal-mart during this time of year
There is a time of year that you *do* like Wal-Mart. I go there, they have a good selection in many cases, but I don't like it.
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.