Posted on 10/29/2009 3:46:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.
The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.
A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping.
Bob Bauer also happens to be Mr. Anita Dunn.
Cozy, in’n’it?
Are all our judges bought off now?
“”Bob Bauer also happens to be Mr. Anita Dunn.
Cozy, in’n’it?””
Cozy and incestuous!
So, this ordeal is finally over. Birthers and anti-birthers, Now, can’t we all just get along?
parsy, who says birthers should let this end
I find it curious that the judge’s ruling cites unadmitted evidence - the picture of the disputed COLB.
I also find it disheartening that a socialist democrat can get elected to the presidency, and be certified the winner by a predominantly democrat congress, without having answered the fundamental question of whether he is qualified or not - and there appears to be no way to force things to a reckoning.
BTW - No, we can’t all get along. Obozo has declared war on truth and conservatives. Haven’t you heard?
WTF
Let’s play a hypothetical. Play along with me on this one.
A President and Vice President are killed. In haste, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swears in the Speaker of the House as President.
After the swearing in, it is learned that the Chief Justice didn’t ask the age of the Speaker of the House, and just assumed that they were old enough per the Constitution. He just assumed and didn’t know that the new President was NOT qualified due to age.
Now the newly sworn in President CLAIMS that they are old enough, but refuses to release their birth certificate to the public.
Just who has legal authority for review after the Speaker of the House has been sworn in as President? According to this ruling, it isn’t the judicial branch. Because no crime has been committed, the President can’t be impeached, so it isn’t the legislative branch (and because the Speaker of the House is from the majority party, that party controls the House as well). The President is chief executive over the executive branch so they wouldn’t out themselves.
So I ask again, who would have legal authority?
I certainly don’t get it.
The proper place for “suspicions” is before and during an election NOT in a court AFTER the election. So by all means, put up signs, send secret agents to Kenya and Obama’s kindergarten. Who, maybe you are all right and he was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I wish you the best of luck.
I would also suggest that you find better legal representation than Orly. And, if you make enough of a dent into his percentage next election, he may bring out the long form. Be prepared to do a Roseanne Roseannadanna. Have a good birther exit-strategy.
parsy, the strategic genius
This is really sad. There are just too many reasons this should have gone forward.
Count on it.
So much for judicial independence and courage.
This should be the focus of the next round of tea parties. The Kenyan Usurper cannot be allowed to illegally remain in power and illegally RAISE TAXES on real Americans.
In other words, your stance is “they got away with it”.
The pre-election cases were dismissed because of the injury being conjectural. The post-election/pre-inauguration cases were insufficient because he hadn’t been sworn in. And the post-inauguration cases were moot because he’d been sworn in.
I would suggest that you misunderstand the real nature of all of these outcomes - regardless of your opinion of one or more lawyers on the cases. We the people are obviously no longer citizens - but are only subjects.
And you’re happy about it.
Mortman, who recognizes fecal matter when he sees it.
I find it curious that the judge’s ruling cites unadmitted evidence - the picture of the disputed COLB.
***Interesting. I’ll need to bump that remark for later checking. As for your other comment, I also find it disheartening but I don’t know what to do about it.
I’m realistic about it. If Obama presents a COLB which says on its face that it is “prima facie” evidence of birth in Hawaii on a certain date, there really needs to be something pretty significant in the way of evidence to overcome it.
You birthers may get what you want if come 2011 or 2012 Obama thinks he is behind. Then you may get the long form and you guys need to have some exit strategy besides more suspicions. You guys will have 50 states in which you can seek injunctive relief prior to the election.
parsy, who sneers at dangers, laughs at peril, and goes tee hee hee in the face of death and disaster
You keep being realistically happy, FRiend.
Parsy, why do we need “a good birther exit-strategy.” ? If he shows the original long form BC, and it supports the contention that he was born in the US, then fine...he’s the prez. We don’t need an exit strategy. We need the truth.
Do we agree with his policies? Nope.
Do we agree with his socialist agenda? Nope.
Do we agree with his profligate spending? Nope.
Do we think he should be booted out of the WH? Yep.
The eligibility issue was raised during the campaign, and was never adequately addressed (in the minds of many). The questions remain, and still go unanswered. We want to know the truth about the man in charge. That’s all.
The judge himself said in today's ruling: "(Taitz') argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep, counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So -- where do we stand now?
You need the exit strategy because if he coughs up the long form, and there is nothing wrong with it, then you need to decide which way to go. Do you say “Thank you, Mr. President. We are satisfied that you are an American idiot and not a Kenyan idiot” or do you go deeper into conspiracy la-la land.
IMHO, if the long form comes out and he is for real, you need to lose with dignity and get onto to fussing about his policies.
parsy, who says you need to plan ahead for the spanking and put some books in your britches
Kelly, who says “shame on you.”
He’s a clown alright, and that crap with signing off in the third person is as annoying and worn out as the creeps in the White Hut.
The way to go, genius, is to the polling place come 11/2012.
And, for the record, since all you've done is make jokes about this issue and belittle those of us who want the Constitution of the United States to be upheld; your “opinion” doesn't hold much water around here.
Kelly says “get lost” and take your lame posts with you over to the DU where you will be right at home.
Her’s the friggin problem in a nutshell. You said it:
“you may not have a problem with a usurper being the POTUS & CIC; “
YOU DON”T KNOW HE IS A USURPER! YOU HAVE NO PROOF HE IS A USURPER. HE HAS PRESENTED A VALID DOCUMENT PROVING HE IS AN AMERICAN. ALL YOU HAVE ARE SOME FRIGGIN SUSPICIONS.
Since I screamed in caps, do you get it yet? You are the one with a problem. You’re the clown. You have transformed your suspicions into a fact. You are the “Sore Loserman” of this election. Like Obama or not he won the election and you need to get over it. Save your stupid suspicions for the 2012 election. That is the proper place for them. Not US District Court now.
Nobody has to like or believe a candidate who is running for office. Your suspicions are perfectly acceptable at that phase. And knock off your stupid inane blathering about the Constitution. You are the one trashing it, trying to overturn established law and substitute a whole brand new legal standard on the country, namely “Person A should be able to sue Person B whenever they suspect something”
That kind of crap has been tried before. There was this little thingie called the Soviet Union and the commie bosses were perfectly at home chunking people into the Gulag over suspicions. So get off your friggin high horse and haul your buns over to some commie country where you will fit right in.
parsy, who says don’t mess with him until he has had his morning cup of coffee
“If” you had bothered to actually READ Carter’s ruling,
you would KNOW that Hussein NEVER provided ANYONE with a Birth Certificate. So Carter’s ruling is in errror and an appeal is on the way.
Now run along missy and take your lame “third person” signoffs with you...
“HE HAS PRESENTED A VALID DOCUMENT PROVING HE IS AN AMERICAN”
BULLSHIT
All that has been provided is some COLB that any 9-yr old with access to a computer could have produced.
They're looking for you over at the DU, genius. LMAO
Dear KGB Klone.
I did read the ruling. Last nite. Now, Mr. Constitution, salute your president! His name is Barack Obama. We ain’t none of us got to like him, but he won, so there it is. Quit acting like an AlGore Sore Loserman and accept it. Do your homework and maybe before 2011 gets here, you will have some actual proof. Then you can challenge him at every single state.
parsy, who says suspicions ain’t squat
I am a United States Marine. And I suggest you remember that.
I’m not up on all these acronyms. What is DU?
Depleted Uranium?
Then support your constitution. You have a commander in chief. Its like when JFK died. My dad couldn’t stand him.But like he said, he was our president, whether we liked him or not. He was glad Oswald got shot.
He couldn’t stand LBJ even more. Nonetheless, he shipped out to Nam when he was told to go. Its like he taught me. You don’t have to like me or like what I say, but you have to do what I tell you.
And if you are truly a Marine, you certainly know that you should not be running your commander in chief down in public. And if you think some idiotic “suspicions” give you ground to go to court and sue, then you need to haul your buns to the base library and start reading up on American law.
And, I am not impressed by your whining. You started calling names and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
parsy, who don’t mind jumping right back in your face
Democrat Underground. Its where all the idiot lefties go to post and rant. I suspect about half of them are freepers stirring up doo doo. I served my time there. Somewhere, way back is a post where a DU’er....oh never mind.
parsy, who used to troll the liberal sites a lot
Show me where the law says a so-called commander in chief who is doing his best to overthrow the United States Constitution should be treated like a normal, patriotic CIC.
You won’t, because you can’t.
parsy, whose ideology is worthless.
Well when you are in the military you’d better. If not, your commanding officer will convince you.
parsy, who says you are entitled to not like your president
What if your commanding officer desires to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution?
parsy, who might not deserve to be cornered like this
You might like to do some reading here before you start slinging canards again:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm
Cannot - Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (10 U.S.C. 888 lists the following officeholders: President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which the military member is on duty).
It’s interesting to note at this point that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for commissioned officers to use contemptuous words against the above officeholders. Commissioned officers who violate this provision can be court-martialed for a direct violation of Article 88. But, what about enlisted members and warrant officers?
DOD Directive 1344.10 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Active duty enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.
So, what about retired members? Well, DOD Directive 1344.10 only applies to active duty, so retired enlisted and warrant officers can pretty much say anything they want concerning the above office-holders. However, Article 2 of the UCMJ specifically states that retired members are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. Does that mean that retired commissioned officers are prohibited from using contemptious words against the above officeholders? Technically, yes. A retired commissioned officer who utters contemptuous words against the President or other designated officeholders is technically in violation of Article 88. However, DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. Therefore, unless that retired commissioned officer was recalled to active duty for other purposes, it would not be possible to subject them to court-martial for a violation of Article 88.
parsy, the ex-military brat
I noticed you are unable to address the specific point of my question pertaining to defense of the Constitution.
parsy, who mocks himself in every post
yea, well fuckface anytime you wanna “jump in my face”
you just let me know.
and there is no “if” I am a Marine, asshole.
I AM A MARINE
And I’m from Arkansas. So read this:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm
Cannot - Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (10 U.S.C. 888 lists the following officeholders: President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which the military member is on duty).
It’s interesting to note at this point that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for commissioned officers to use contemptuous words against the above officeholders. Commissioned officers who violate this provision can be court-martialed for a direct violation of Article 88. But, what about enlisted members and warrant officers?
DOD Directive 1344.10 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Active duty enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.
So, what about retired members? Well, DOD Directive 1344.10 only applies to active duty, so retired enlisted and warrant officers can pretty much say anything they want concerning the above office-holders. However, Article 2 of the UCMJ specifically states that retired members are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. Does that mean that retired commissioned officers are prohibited from using contemptious words against the above officeholders? Technically, yes. A retired commissioned officer who utters contemptuous words against the President or other designated officeholders is technically in violation of Article 88. However, DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. Therefore, unless that retired commissioned officer was recalled to active duty for other purposes, it would not be possible to subject them to court-martial for a violation of Article 88.
parsy, who says you need to go rinse your mouth out with soap
go fuck yourself, punk
Why do you hold some parts of the law to be applicable, but not all of it?
Doesn’t the law in our country have a sort of groundwork—that is, something fundamental from which everything else arises? Can you imagine what I might be talking about?
parsy, who can but doesn’t want to
Yeah, constitutionally speaking, Obama is the president and if you don’t like it, then you can resign your commission or asked to be relieved of duty, or go awol. And, for the umpteenth time, suspicions ain’t facts.
parsy, who says you are still jumping to conclusions
So you’re saying a member of the military is obligated by the Constitution to obey the occupant of the White House, who in turn should be allowed to completely disregard the same set of laws?
parsy, who can’t figure out what Alinsky would have advised about posting on the internet
Then you'll probably appreciate this little gem from Judge Carter's ruling. I know I did.
Spoken like a man who has served his country with honor.
“The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief”
This statement is irrelevant. If the judge is not failing to understand the general argument he must be sidestepping it intentionally.
It’s duty to obey based upon the legitimacy of the authority of who is in office, not “duty to serve based upon who is in office.”
As a citizen of this country, I suggest the judge think about the importance of this distinction. Americans are losing patience for incompetence and monkeying around with his duty.
But wait, how does he show his long form to you, in a venue that you accept? On TV, to a bunch of Republican lawmakers? Or Congress?
To Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, to prove that it is right?
Does it travel the U.S., like the Shroud of Turin, so people can look at it and make up their minds?
Who validates this?
As I wrote, we only want the truth. For my part, if he comes up with the long from BC, and the other info that has gone hidden, and it shows him to be fully eligible, and so forth, then fine. I’ll take that, and continue to work against his socialist agenda just as I’m doing, now. I don’t call that an exit strategy. I call that being proven wrong. And, that’s OK.
Of course, there will be a group of folks out and about for whom NO evidence will ever convince them of his eligibility. Much like the Truthers and the Kennedy Conspiracy theorists, etc. I’ve never counted myself among their ranks. This whole smelly affair with 0bama’s hidden history, though, has made me a ‘Birther’. But, if I’m wrong, I’ll own up to it and move ahead.
Either way, this issue deserves a full and complete hearing and final resolution. It is a fundamental Constitutional issue and the people deserve to hear the truth.
I am glad to hear that and I suspect he is going to have to do something prior to the next election or he is going to lose votes.
The problem with this is that you can’t go to court with “Your honor, we just don’t trust this dude and think he’s hiding something” as your case. Thats Salem Witch Trial stuff.
parsy, who tries to be fair and balanced and is unjustly assailed by critics who call him names and hurt his feelings on a regular basis
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.