Skip to comments.Up-to-Date Reporting on Barnett vs. Obama from Santa Ana Federal Courthouse
Posted on 10/05/2009 10:31:23 AM PDT by Deepest End
10:12 am pst
A commenter has asked if the case has been thrown out, I have NOT heard from Gary so the information can not be verified as accurate. Remember Obots like to play on the blogs
(Excerpt) Read more at giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com ...
Thanks, it would appear that Dreams was already done before her death then (or at least in the final copy stages).
Has nothing to do with what he thinks of the merits of the case.
Would not be surprised if he dismisses the suit based on lack of jurisdiction and hint that he believes that there is merit and that an action should be filed in DC.
Well, what’s interesting is the FOI request made by TerriK.
However, Leo Donofrio is no longer representing TerriK.
Background: A person who uses the (false) name of TerriK has made numerous requests for information from the Hawaii Dept of Health. She believes that statements made by certain directors indicate that the birth records have been altered or ammended. Whenever such a record is altered or ammended, a record is maintained of the alteration. Hawaiian law clearly states that these records of alteration are to be disclosed to the public upon request and without delay. TerriK has been refused such records and has a paper trail.
TerriK most definitely has standing in regards to access to records of an altered BC. I haven’t heard if this issue is proceeding, however it may be the most solid back-up in case Orly cannot convince Judge Carter of standing.
Just a legal question here. Can any lawyer out there explain what constitutes “legal standing” in a case? If, for example, H.R. 3200 (health care) is passed and signed by Obama, wouldn’t just about anyone have legal standing to claim that H.R. 3200 was not, in fact, the law of the land because it was not signed by a legitimate president?
My point is this... Can’t we all just file suit and have a legitimate claim to “standing” because we’re all affected by any “law” he has signed?
Thanks, El Gato, for the update.
Now, maybe I can actually get something done today, LOL.
Will check back this evening.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had to spell out a definition of standing, but here goes: standing means that a person (or entity, eg. corp.) “stands” in a legal position to be permitted to bring a particular kind of legal action in a particular court. One of the key elements is that the party who seeks standing is aggrieved or otherwise affected by the conduct or occurrences which form the basis of the suit.
A simple example would be that the person injured in an automobile accident has standing to bring an action against the negligent driver(s), but his next-door neighbor, who had nothing to do with the accident, does not.
In the case of actions against particular governing bodies, standing may stem from various sources, particularly statutes and case law defining standing. It is not unusual to find a statutory framework that provides no standing for citizens to sue either the government or other entities, but leaves that right to bring the action to a prosecutorial authority, such as the U.S. Attorney for the particular district or state Attorneys General for particular states and so on. Sometimes standing is founded on the plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer to the governing body and may bring the action based on the effect of the government action on him personally as a taxpayer.
Applied to the B0/BC case, there seems to be a question as to whether any of the plaintiffs have the right to bring the action under various sources of legal authority, but primarily the Constitution itself. The question can be articulated as follows: Who has standing to bring an action to challenge a President or Presidential Candidate’s eligibility to run for or hold that office? Is it enough to be a member of the armed services, arguing that she is affected by the question because it determines the validity of the authority behind her activation orders which ultimately rests with the CIC?
A closely related question is one of jurisdiction, meaning what Court or other body can hear such a case. The question would be: who is authorized to determine whether a person qualifies as a “natural born citizen” as that term is used in the qualifications language of the US Constitution? Is it any federal judge as a “constitutional question”? Is it only the Congress or one house of Congress? Is it only the US Supreme Court?
Some other people here have cited some statutory language in the US Code and some cases dealing at least with the NBC question.
Hope this is helpful.
Thanks for your explanation.
Interesting comments by the Judge today. It looks like he will toss the case. One comment from the Judge: He said whatever his decision is that either side can appeal to a higher court. It looks like he is just going to pass it off to another court and gave them a heads up to prepare their appeals to be submitted.
Other actions by the judge:
#1 Judge Carter pointed out that the case was unique and that there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly.
#2 Regarding military plaintiffs, Judge Carter mentioned that there was a ruling in the 9th circuit which denied standing to oath takers on the basis that this was not a particularized injury.
#3 Judge Carter questioned on what basis his court could issue a quo warrento proceeding, when the D.C. court had jurisdiction over this kind of proceeding.
#4 Judge Carter questioned the Defenses counsel, regarding the method of impeachment and how that would address this controversy.
#5 In all, Judge Carter was very concerned about standing claims and wanted to know what the actual injuries were, and how standing was being justified.
“Weve seen legitimate COLBs that say Filed rather than Accepted. Just a change of wording.”
I’ve never seen them. Show me please.
Thank you, JewishRighter.
I hope he doesn’t wimp out. All he has to do is look a the no jobs, the government taking over vast amounts of the American economy.
Not Gary Kreep. Who knows why he, the other Gary, thought Judge was leaning to dismiss. Taking counsel of his own fears perhaps? All are vulnerable to that, even those that won't admit it.
You’re quite welcome.
My pleasure. Hope it helps
Not that teens need much stimulus for angst and rebellion. Most just get over it, some let it take them over, for life.
Yes .. it’s written like he’s within walls
and doesn’t want those walls breeched.
Unusual, to say the least.
LOL! Never heard that one before, good one
...just hurry up and wait........
I could definitely see where discovery in that case might make things interesting in any appeals of other cases if it goes forward...
I just read a long entry on TerriK’s blog that she put up yesterday — I do think she’s making some long assumptions (esp. as she’s basing her understanding of stuff on laws in a different state at this point), but there are definite *gems* in her interpretation of what’s going on in Hawaii’s DoH.
Thanks for the info. about Donofrio not representing her any longer... I’ll have to find his blog (lost my bookmarks in a Firefox “accident”), and see if he has stated a reason for that.
It’ll be interesting to see what she does from here on out (if she hires a different lawyer, etc...). I was thinking that she might run into a block of some sort in regards to the amended birth certificate if it was from Barack’s adoption in Indonesia (if it was reported here), but I have received different info. from different people regarding the status of open adoption records in that state and haven’t had time to review the statutes myself at this point.
It’s definitely an interesting case she’s got as it would seem that Hawaii’s own laws in regards to the statements made and where the information came from being shown to the public, and the restrictions regarding Vital Records seem to be at odds (again, if the closed records statutes are still in place in Hawaii re: adoption records).
I don’t want to sound like a “half empty” person either, but to me, this case is a ‘slam-dunk’ for the Plaintiffs as far as going forward is concerned. I thought last hearing’s transcripts indicated that Judge Carter made a statement that a motion to dismiss action is ‘rarely granted’ (paraphrasing) in a case like this. Initially, Judge Carter was ready to rule on the MTD on Friday 9/11, but Kreeps wanted more time.
I want the Usurper and his gang of legal thugs nailed more than anything, but for Judge request more time to review the new paperwork to me is ‘not’ a good sign...the initial innocence and zeal which he initially exhibited is waning and he is probably under an INCREDIBLE amount of pressure to ‘not’ proceed with thus case. (in my opinion)
Lastly, I hope Leo continues to persevere ! We get little glimmers of hope with the new petitioners, but thus far, still are having VERY limited cooperation from the criminals at the State level in HI...this cover-up is BEYOND what we can imagine...
I hope I am wrong !
Not a lawyer here, but I heard that standing is a “doctrine” which was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1920s. It is not referred to in the Constitution and it is not defined via statute. Is this correct?
There's always been standing in civil cases. However the notion that mere voters or citizens do not have standing to contest the Constitutionality of laws or government actions is fairly knew.
Here's an article Substantial Interest: Standing from law.oncle.com.
Oh goodness .. that’s unreadable.
Can you please repost with formatting .. ;)
Star, either in a rush, I had something I didn’t want in my clipboard or another oddity.
I meant just just post a reminder about tonight’s “Awakening” with Leo D. Oh, well.
I’ll post a couple notes in my own threads that remind folks that it’s archived. There was actually some big news — aA massive petition campaign for Quo Warranto.
I’ll be writing about it in I.O.
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.