Posted on 01/11/2010 12:47:03 PM PST by Red Steel
It is my best guess that Obama’s attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over… far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.
Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:
Orly has pointed out that Judge Carter promised to hear the case on its merits. The Justice Department defending Obama conned the Judge into dismissing and used the excuse of “jurisdiction” claiming only Quo Warranto can be brought in Washington DC.
Orly said, “fine, let’s move the case.” She is asking Judge Carter to move the case to Judge Lamberth’s court in DC. This would serve to best expedite the case, including discovery.
Orly is making sure that Judge Carter is aware of the fact that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been stalling for many months now. An original Quo Warranto was filed in Judge Taylor’s Washington DC court (he has since retired.. couldn’t stand the heat in my opinion).. that was back in March, 2009. The Justice Department has done everyting in its power to stall, hide, ignore the case..
Orly is telling the Judge that the longer he waits to allow “we the people” to seek justice in court the more damage that Obama does to our Country. The Justice Department is basically defending a Usuper in office.. the entire system appears to be corrupt.. of course, Eric Holder is simply a puppet for Obama.
We hope and pray that Judge Carter allows this case to be transferred.. Obama will have a much tougher time getting the case dismissed in Washington DC if Carter allows the transfer.. Any kind of ruling against Obama will set a precedent that could literally force the Court into action.
Only in some cases, a couple of states, and some localities in others, is a long form necessary. It depends on what is on the short form, and it's accuracy. In one case the "place" shown was not the place of birth, which is absolutely required for a passport based on citizenship by birth in the US.
It may be a matter of record, but it's not legal evidence. The statement was not given under oath nor submitted to any court. Neither has the supposed COLB posted on Daily KOS, etc. The so called "Smith" Kenyan birth certificate was at least submitted as evidence to a court, and was accompanied by a witnessed affidavit. Legally it would have more weight than some "press release" and an image of something purporting to be a COLB.
They certified the vote count, not the candidates. You'll find nothing from Congress declaring that Obama is actually eligible to the Office.
Obama hssn't shown one of those either. He fights in court to not show it. An image on website doesn't count. Especially one with as many "defects" as the ones shown on KOS, Annenberg Factcheck, etc.
My own theory is that if it were admitted as evidence in Court, it would be legal proof that his father was Barrack H. Obama, a citizen of Kenya and not a US citizen. Although BHO Jr's books say that BHO sr is his father, as does "grandmother" Sarah, but those are hearsay, not legal evidence.
That's not quite what she said. She said she has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i".
So all it would take is some indication that the "official vital records" were fraudulently filed, presumably to obtain US citizen for a child that otherwise would not be a US Citizen, at least without some long drawn out paperwork at least.
Thanks for the ping!
Any statement she made about the authenticity of a certified copy of the birth certificate, long or short form, that was produced for the Court, would have to be witnessed and probably made under oath.
A press release would not cut it. Nor would the statement itself, without the accompanying document.
The fact is that the long form/original BC contains more, and more verifiable information than the short form. About the only thing that could be verified from the short form was the parents address, which World Daily Verified was occupied by Stanley Ann, her parents, but not BHO Sr, who had another residence closer to the university. They used a city directory published at the time for this purpose.
Who says the Supreme Court didn't do their job? They visited the citizenship issue more than a century ago with Kim Wong Ark. Just because a group of people want them to revisit the issue (and construct a ruling that would disqualify Obama) doesn't mean SCOTUS is obligated to do so."
-----------------------------------------------
SCOTUS, in ARK, did not address the question of who is an NBC as a requirement for Article II section 1 clause 5.
Log on-orrhea.
Sort of like the runs whenever it logs on.
http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/natural-born-citizen-chapter-6-u-s-v-wong-kim-ark/
Tell me about this Justice Gray..who is he who appointed him? Are 100 year old precedents set in stone or can they change with a different SC? Was Obama’s father a permanent legtal resident of the USA, like Kim Wong Ark’s? Keep dreaming Drew68
Well, they have those in Venezuela too, and they had elections in the old Soviet Union too. So?
After all if one part of Section II of the Constitution can be ignored by BHO and his enablers, why not other parts, as modified by the XIIth and XXth amendments?
He's not, he is "mixed up" with Philip Berg, being his co-counsel on "Hollister verses Soetero" where they are fighing various lawyers from Perkins-Coie, LLP who are representing Soetero/Obama.
By law, including federal law as they interpret it, the Offial of the State of Hawaii is not supposed to be revealing anything from the Birth Certificate. At least not without the permission of the principal, in this case The One. But she did. So I would not put much faith in the lawyers of the Hawaiian Health Department.
Of course it could show that one or both parents were NOT born in the US, and the person could still be a natural born citizen, if the parent(s) were naturalized before the birth, but that information would not be on the BC, only the parents' places of birth. Some state's BC's might show parents' citizenship, but the 1961 version of Hawaii did not.
Which was about citizenship by birth in the US, not about Natural born citizenship. The only place it mentions NBC is when it, in a quotation, compares the child of alien, born in the US, to the natural-born child of a citizen, stating that both have the same rights, but also indicating that they are not the same thing.
But being eligible to the Office of President is not a right. If it were how could it be denied to naturalized citizens?).
If I'm not mistaken, Berg isn't on the case anymore. They are not co-counsel's.
Most excellent point.
Save your breath. You’re not making a bit of difference here.
I belive thr CA Bar is working on that.
All threads are open for discussion, genius.
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.