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
My mistake. It was Judge Land that called it frivilous.
I like your summation. However, do you not agree that Taitz should be heard on the case? If not, who will hear her case? If no one, then it means our Constitution is a living document and will be used at the discretion of the presiding judge.
And had Taitz done it correctly to begin with then there would be no need for hearings and no need to do it again. But doing things correctly is not the Orly way.
By the way, I van always spot one who when asked for a quote refers to the whole document.
It's called "knowing what we're talking about" and I can understand why it's confusing to you.
Youre just another Obama shill.
And you're just another Birther whackjob.
No, I do not. Since the inauguration, this matter is no longer meets the requirements set forth in the principle of justiciability. Since Obama became a sitting President, the only way to remove him is via the Impeachment process.
If the right plaintiff(s) would have come forward before the inauguration, and if an injunction would have been granted temporarily suspending the swearing-in of Obama, then perhaps this is something that could have been handled by the courts.
I would add, however, that even with the right plaintiffs and the right filing date, it would be dubious if there's even enough evidence to support a trial. In American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and that include the burden to demonstrate it has a reasonable case before motions for discovery are granted. To date, I have seen nothing about this case (this case being Obama wasn't born in America) that a court wouldn't summarily dismiss as conjecture, speculation, innuendo and rumor - that's not going to get plaintiffs a "day in court" in the US.
Furthermore, even if it were, Obama has, via his HI Certification of Live Birth, prima facie evidence of his birth in HI. That document, coupled with an affidavit or direct testimony from the appropriate HI officials would be virtually unimpeachable evidence, creating a challenge for plaintiffs that would be insurmountable. Plaintiffs wouldn't make it passed summary judgment, and a court wouldn't violate Obama's right to privacy on a hunch that his vault copy said something different. Plaintiffs would have to present real evidence - not conjecture - that his vault copy actually said something different.
It's a bit of a Catch-22, but American law puts a premium on a right to privacy. It's just the way the law works.
I recognize you'll disagree with this. You're probably convinced that he was indeed born someplace else. But, as a litigator with over 25 years of experience, that's how things would unfold in US federal court, in my estimation.
“If the right plaintiff(s) would have come forward before the inauguration, and if an injunction would have been granted temporarily suspending the swearing-in of Obama, then perhaps this is something that could have been handled by the courts.”
And if this is what had happened the courts would have said that since he wasn’t THE president then there is no case to be heard. The courts were and are not going to hear this case no matter what. It is dereliction on their part and it has put a stain on our Constitution.
I don’t know where he was born but by securing all medical records pertaining to his birth I will believe that he is guilty of being an illegal president. He brings it on himself.
Candidate eligibility cases are heard virtually every election year in state courts, and sometimes even in federal court, all across the country. In fact, it's not uncommon at all. The most frequent challenge to a candidate's eligibility comes when a candidate perhaps doesn't live a the appropriate district, or county or city or that the candidate didn't acquire the requisite number of qualifying petition signatures and his/her challenger (or the challenger's party) will file suit to obtain an injunction to keep that candidate's name from appearing on the ballot or from assuming the office if actually elected. Again, happens all the time.
The office of the President - or Senator/Representative - is a little different by virtue of the fact that these are Constitutionally prescribed offices. Once they actually take office, the Judiciary is either limited or completely foreclosed from removing them - that is something that is Constitutionally in the sole purview of the Legislature.
If someone with legitimate standing - Like McCain or according to Judge Carter, perhaps even Keyes - would have filed for injunctive relief prior to the election (presumably to keep Obama's name off the ballot) or prior to the Inauguration, to keep him from assuming the office, AND they had credible evidence that he indeed wasn't born in the country, I have NO DOUBT that case would have been heard, even by the most liberal of judges.
The argument that Obama doesn't qualify as an NBC because of the foreign-national status of his father is far less compelling, IMHO. But, I suppose that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that argument would have been heard as well. It may not have prevailed, but it probably would have been heard.
You are wrong. The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
Secondly, the Courts have jurisdiction over fraud in the election process.
Thirdly, even an elected President can be removed by Quo Warranto in the DC Court. That was set by Congress, so they can’t argue about the Courts interfearing.
Just needs someone with standing to do a Quo Warranto in DC.
And people wouldn’t be making all the hysterical statements about the death of the Constitution on these threads.
“Once they actually take office, the Judiciary is either limited or completely foreclosed from removing them - that is something that is Constitutionally in the sole purview of the Legislature.”
I agree with this. HOWEVER, I don’t believe that the judiciary is not capable of determining the eligibility of a sitting president. It would still be up to the legislature to remove the president if found to be ineligible by the court.
“AND they had credible evidence that he indeed wasn’t born in the country,”
That’s the whole gist of the problem. If a candidate doesn’t provide the information then how is anyone supposed to have credible evidence. That is what Taitz is asking for. Besides, no judge would have heard any of this before the election because the Secretary of State for each state certified the ballot and the judge would have said that that was good enough.
Though there is no reason whatsoever to believe that BHO isn’t a US citizen at all.
The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
I am not a lawyer, but that appears to be a matter of some dispute. That statement appears to depend on whether the Founding Fathers depended on Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns, as the source of their thinking. That document was written in French by a Swiss philosopher, and was not part of English common law. It has been cited frequently as part of the "just war" doctrine, but, AFAIK, has never been used as a precedent for a US Supreme Court decision. It was cited in the dissent in the case of The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. The majority decision cited English common law as stating that, "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject," and held that to be the controlling precedent for US common law.
There is also the obvious precedent of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President. There is some similarity to Obama's situation, since there was a dispute at the time of his election to the Vice-Presidency regarding his place of birth. There were rumors that he had actually been born in Ireland or Canada rather than in Fairfield, Vermont. The fact that his father was a British subject from Northern Ireland, and not naturalized as a US citizen until 1843, was undisputed and did not appear to be an issue to the electorate of the time.
Though there is no reason whatsoever to believe that BHO isnt a US citizen at all.There actually is some dispute about whether Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, in Hawaii or when he lived in Indonesia from 1967-71. Some say that would negate his American citizenship, although clearly the United States has treated him as a US citizen ever since.
They’d be wrong.
US citizenship is hard to lose. A parent cannot renounce it for the child in any way for any reason.
If has to be renounced by the individual themselves after they have attained legal age.
The US treats him as a citizen because he is a citizen.
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned Englands natural allegiance doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Chester Artur hid his birthplace and parents citizenship from the electorate. He was a fraud like Obama.
MN Doc is another Obama Shill. Joined Nov 08. Cuts and pastes same posts as MLO.
Chester Artur hid his birthplace and parents citizenship from the electorate.As I understand it, there was active "opposition research" by the Democrats against Arthur with respect to his birthplace, but his father's citizenship was well-known, (as the source for the questions about the candidate's birthplace,) and that that was not an issue for the electorate. Is there a reference somewhere that William Arthur's birthplace or citizenship was hidden? Or that Arthur's eligibility was challenged based on his father's citizenship? Thanks.
“MYTH #1: Chester Arthurs British birth was known and accepted by the American people.
This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.
Chesters father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/
“The evidence comes from the August 23, 1894, issue of The Nation magazine which states:
In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because he was on his birth subject to a foreign power, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States .
Here we have an official US State Department ruling from 1885 that people born in the US of foreign parentage are subject to foreign powers and not considered US citizens.
This provides proof positive Bayard had no idea whatsoever that, at the time of President Arthurs birth, father William was not a US citizen.
Its important we note Bayards concern that the German subject was, on his birth subject to a foreign power. Thats the key. On his birth, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power. On his birth, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a citizen of the US, never mind natural born.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen. The word born refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time. Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born. Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.
The Nation article appears below in full for your review.”
PLease post any evidence you have that the electorate knew that Chester Arthurs fathe was British Subject at the time of Chesters birth.
The red herring of because Barry was legally adopted, his Indonesian citizenship calls into question his natural born citizenship, 'because he was adopted by an Indonesian and thus is an Indonesian citizen' is being played for pretend significance, to draw attention away from the actual significance of his adoption.
The issue is not whether he is still an Indonesian citizen through Lolo, by adoption, because he is also still a British subject through his biological father. The real issue is whether the lying affirmative action fraud used his Indonesian or Kenayn citizenship to obtain a passport or college entry or college tuition assistance AFTER becoming an adult, AND whether being born a dual citizen eliminates being a natural born citizen of the United States since his asserted father was a Kenyan/Brit at Barry 's time of birth.
The bait and switch misdirection is a technique well worn in the used car business but it is a shame that FR now protects such deception.
You know, MHG, that one must really sit back and admire the professional thoroughness of this campaign of duplicity.
Strategy, baby! Run the PR campaign of disinformation. Encourage the poor rubes to go to the wrong court with their inept or worse lawyers to take on really good lawyers, with unlimited resources, working for an evil cause.
Result? The issue of "native born vs NATURAL BORN is now thoroughly conflated and the wily rabbits of Team Obama are again attempting to lead the hounds into the thickets of the "Indonesian Jungle." Guess what? Nothing in there, but do keep sniffing around past 2012.
Plaintiff's attorneys attemped the legal equivalent of mixing an order of a lb. of apples and a dozen oranges in a hardware store. Guess what? Hardware stores don't stock fruit. The hardware store can sell you a screw. Surprise, surprise; that's what they got.
Please don't try to blame this on the judge. IMHO, the worst that can be said of him is that he ran out of patience with the pleadings before him, which resembled a dog's breakfast. Yes, he kicked'em when they were going down anyway, and when he really didn't have to. Boo-frickin'-hoo.
The BC issue will be settled one way or the other in Hawaii. The NBC issue will be settled in DC.