(Btw, those were vultures in the earlier photo.)
Posted on 10/05/2009 2:10:16 PM PDT by opentalk
A federal judge in California today listened to government lawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama's eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later.
The result came this morning from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who already has set a tentative trial date for the dispute Jan. 26, 2010. The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial.
WND previously reported on plans for the hearing handled by attorneys Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, each representing separate clients.
The lawsuit was brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
A guy-in-a-White-House just cant get a break this week...
mmm mmm mmm
********A federal judge in California today listened to government lawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama’s eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later************8
GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY’S———Why should government lawyers be protecting the lies of Obama’s eligibility.
If Obama needs attorneys he should be paying them. NOT ME.
All of this would go away if he produced his records. Why doesnt he. There HAS to be a reason. I dont know the reason, but there HAS to BE one. What is he afraid of?
The American public has a right to know.
I read recently where Obama’s COLB was “filed” not “accepted”. It would appear that there is a difference if not an out right forgery. If there is a difference, what is it and why does the difference exist. If a forgery .....
So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of :
“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
ping
That's what I have been wondering about. Maybe he will have to reimburse the taxpayers if he gets booted from where he doesn't belong.
The obamanoids will be here soon, they work at the DOJ as covered in the story last week about DOJ having paid bloggers to spin for the democrats on websites like FR.
Oldeckhand will be reporting soon, unless his shift already left for the day.
"Obama can't get eligibility case dismissed Judge says he will issue decision later"
I don't know about anyone else, but that headline suggests that Obama has suffered a setback. Not true at all. As other threads and sites today have reported, the hearing ended without a decision at all. This is not unusual. The judge may be going back to chambers and preparing a written ruling that he will issue or announce from the bench, as soon as the same day.
The better headline, for accuracy purposes, would be "Judge defers decision on Obama request to dismiss eligibility suit". I guess that's just not sexy enough to drive web traffic.
Having said all that, I am uneasy about the judge's reservation of the decision. In my experience, it sometimes reflects the judge's desire to make sure he has crafted his decision carefully, rather than simply ruling extemporanously at the conclusion of the hearing. He does so to make sure that the aggrieved party has no viable avenues of appeal. A hastily announced decision may leave more room to argue that the decision was not well founded legally or factually, whereas a carefully written opinion tends to cover all the based more thoroughly, for obvious reasons.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FAUX POST THIS MORNING?
(Btw, those were vultures in the earlier photo.)
The next big “Don't ask, don't tell” is health care. The illegals aren't covered, but no one will ask if they're citizens and they won't tell us. It's another case of “Don't ask, don't tell” at the federal government level.
If we don't again start to “Trust, but verify” we will cease to be a nation of laws.
Additions to the FR Master Troll list are being made.
It was pretty silly!
"The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial. "That happened a week or so ago...right? Not today? That's an interesting statement. IF judge Carter was inclined to dismiss, why have the lawyers draw up a tentative schedule?
It was struck down because of excessive use of caps-lock.
Now they talk about who can unseat a sitting President...Isn’t this changing the focus again?
Geesh - all this to keep from producing a simple birth certificate. And now, it’s OUR dollars paying for it.
So we’re back in a wait-n-see mode.
Any indication when Judge Carter will make a decision?
fill me in :) what was the faux article??
Did Obama or did he not want the court to determine the citizens of the US have no constitutional standing today? Did he win his argument today as all the DOJ snarks expected?
No he did not get the decision he expected today. Yes, that was a set back for the King who is above the constitution and rule of law. He’s still waiting to see if this judge agrees that he is above the constitution like our traitorous Congress does.
No two ways about it, this was a set back for the Kenyan.
Does anybody have U.S. District Judge David Carter’s fax number? Maybe we should let him know that America is behind him.
Does anybody have U.S. District Judge David Carter’s fax number? Maybe we should let him know that America is behind him.
Nice tagline! :)
Does anybody have U.S. District Judge David Carter’s fax number? Maybe we should let him know that America is behind him.
Look, no one wants 0 out herding goats more than I. But it was not a setback. It was just like you ask me can I borrow your car and I say “I’ll let you know a little later”. I haven’t refused or said yes. You are exactly where you were before you asked the question. The decision is pending. Nothing more, nothing less.
I hope this is not going to get me labeled as some lurker. I just think it’s wrong when we get all excited by an inaccurate headline and don’t have a correct appreciation of where crucial matters really stand.
from another article thread
“”That happened a week or so ago...right?””
No - this was the second hearing in the courtroom in Santa Ana. Today’s date had been set at the first hearing and if not dismissed then a January trial date was set.
“Now they talk about who can unseat a sitting President...Isn’t this changing the focus again?”
Yeah, and he’s asking about McCain. McCain is not currently accused of usurping the presidency. If somehow McCain winds up in office we can talk about his issues then.
From the OC Weekly press report on the hearing today: "He said that he had heard that Taitz had exhorted followers on her blog to contact the court, and that his receptionist had to take as many as forty calls a day from Taitz's supporters. "I can assure you that during the proceedings, the government or President Obama haven't contacted me," he said. "If there's any undue pressure [on the court], it's from you." Carter said Taitz was welcome to have her followers continue to contact the court -- it wouldn't sway his decision either way -- but that phone calls would be sent straight to voice-mail and deleted."
You’ve got it nailed. He has a reason, what it is we don’t know, but it can’t be good or he wouldn’t be fighting it so hard.
The judge had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings...today (10/5)?
Thank You
Asking the courts to remove a usurper in public office is requesting a writ of “quo warranto”. By US law all requests for a Federal writ of quo warranto must be filed in the Federal District Court in DC. Judge Carter is a good man, but he is bound by the statute, and I think he is very likely to dismiss the case with sympathetic language suggesting a refiling in DC. Unfortunately finding another judge as good as Carter would require exceptional luck.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/antieau/ant-ext2.htm
It would be a potential help for Obama if: 1) the ruling is dismissal and the timing is in the midst of the health care debate, because 2) it will give the MSM the chance to use a dismissal as a bludgeon against conservatives who are arguing against Obama's health care plan, by 3) claiming that they were wrong then over Obama's status and they are wrong now over his health care plan.
-PJ
Interesting perspective, but allow me to politely demur. I think you are looking at such fine nuances that they are almost invisible in the bigger picture as to any negative impacts on 0 worthy of being called a setback. In other words, with State Controlled MSM doing total blackout on the story, its only us here in the conservative blogoshpere that are really noticing. That’s a good thing and may serve well in keeping morale and focus on the issue high, but it’s still not a setback to 0.
Having said that, on the other side, since 0 has the State Controlled MSM on his side, if the case is dismissed, you are 100% right and can bet that that story will be trumpeted, especially if he’s lucky enough for it to break when he needs a distraction.
It was actually quite laughable. Rabscuttle does a far better job and would be worth 4 times the salary of these DOJ Oba trolls now on FR. They swarm the Orly threads.They are very worried, as is Holder.
"Kreep told WND after the hearing it appeared to him the judge was expecting answers and failed to get them from government attorneys during the hearing.
"He was asking the [Department of Justice] to explain impeachment. If he really was [legitimately president], how would that work."
Kreep said he argued impeachment wasn't relevant, since "you have to have a valid, elected president." He said a court hearing with full disclosure of evidence is required, since the impeachment provision wouldn't technically apply to someone who never was qualified to be president.
Taitz was contacted by WND but declined to comment on today's hearing.
But Kreep said he argued that a simple numbers formula also doesn't apply. Many of the government arguments have noted the candidates who are plaintiffs, such as Keyes, did not have a reasonable mathematical probability of winning the presidential election.
That assertion is not relevant, Kreep said he argued. Had Obama's ineligibility been publicized before the election, Hillary Clinton likely would have become the nominee, and she might have been vulnerable to other candidates, he said. "
great link, thanks. Its a little discouraging to see how obvious it is that that is the proper vehicle and, somehow, Orly missed that and is wasting all this time and resources pursuing the remedy in the wrong venues. I don’t like it when people are putting her down on these threads, but stuff like this just doesn’t help her case as a truly competent attorney. G-d bless her for her courage and moxy, but Clarence Darrow she ain’t.
mmm mmm mmm
Obama is an Usurper
I missed that where is that story. thanks
I predicted Orly would do this. WND would have been a good guess too. :-)
is this the lawsuit that was filed before Obama took the oath of office ?
I don’t label people. :)
I am just saying, given the history of this question in court, Obama is accustomed to his lawyers walsing in and having the case dismissed immediately and walsing out while throwing mud at the “birthers.” That did not happen this time. To me that is a set back for the king wannabe.
We need to have a system of Loser Pays so that if Obama is proven to not be qualified, he would have to the legal expenses of the plantifs.
And if the plaintiffs fail to prove that Obama is not a NBC, the plaintiffs would have to pay the legal expenses of Obama and the government.
I think that Keyes, was from before election, this is from the article.
"But Kreep said he argued that a simple numbers formula also doesn't apply. Many of the government arguments have noted the candidates who are plaintiffs, such as Keyes, did not have a reasonable mathematical probability of winning the presidential election. That assertion is not relevant, Kreep said he argued. Had Obama's ineligibility been publicized before the election, Hillary Clinton likely would have become the nominee, and she might have been vulnerable to other candidates, he said."
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.
