And a fraudulent basis as well, since no "American birth records" have ever been presented.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/29/2009 6:34:02 PM PDT by STARWISE
A U.S. district court judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit involving Orly Taitz seeking to have President Obama removed from office because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
In his dismissal – which is, despite the legalese, a pretty entertaining read – Judge David O. Carter writes that removal of a sitting president for any reason "is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
*snip*
"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic," continues Carter. "Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."
Elsewhere in the document, Carter says that "[p]laintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved."
"Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya," he writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
DISMISSES CASE WHICH SOUGHT REMEDY FOR MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD IN 2008
by John Charlton
Excerpt:
(Oct. 29, 2009) — In a ruling that has stunned none but those who love this Nation, Judge David O. Carter has granted the Motion to Dismiss presented by the Department of Justice, in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.
The case involved the massive election fraud which occurred in 2008 General Election, when Barack Hussein Obama, though not an eligible candidate, was admitted to the ballot in California, and thus harmed and disadvantaged candidates running on third-party tickets, such as Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson.
The ridiculous ruling was characterized by Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs as something “written by the Defense,” according to the World Net Daily report.
The Post & Email will highlight the most vicious and erroneous statements in the ruling.
CARTER SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE A VICIOUS BAITER OF PATRIOTS
What Judge Carter did was not only deny justice, he viciously insulted and baited patriotic Military personnel everywhere, by his outrageous statement regarding the military plaintiff, Jason Freese in the case:
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Just prior to this outrageous insult, the Carter shows himself to be a true supporter of dictatorship over law, when he claims that U.S. Military must serve even if their chief commander has no lawful authority to command them:
Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
He then ridiculously claims that those who participate in the reception of funds taken unlawfully from the national treasury are not capable of being found guilty of crime, so long as they claim a reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of the theft. For a Judge famed for his opposition to Mexican Mafia, he seems to have entire support for the Chicago Mob. Isn’t that a racist attitude, from the liberal point of view?
Carter’s laughable ruling also claims that you have a duty to pay taxes to the IRS, but you have no rights to ask whether the President who signs the spending bills for those taxes is legitimate: or in other words, you are a feudal serf, and must pay no matter how illegitimate or corrupt the Federal Government becomes, because, in the Judge’s words, the Supreme Court says so!
~~PING!
BTTT
Its only worth reporting now that it has been dismissed... you knew that was coming.
Right .... look at the lineup of cowards now
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=orly%20taitz%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Oh look .. even the premier political website, POLITICO, is chiming in ... NOW. Any spine or journalistic integrity there for investigating the matter and finding the truth? Nah ...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/Brutal_ruling_quashes_birthers_suit.html
Sounds like passing the buck. Congress says this issue should be resolved in the court. The court says it should be resolved by Congress.
It’s what the media chumps have been doing since the beginning.
As the judge himself said today:
"Plaintiffs' arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead Plaintiffs' counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the langugage of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs' enthusiastic presentations, 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."
Her clients fired the stupid dentist. On what basis did she even remain on the case? Gary Kreep is appealing the case. Let's hope Orly Taitz will take her wigs and head back to Tel Aviv or Woscow or wherever she came from, and leave the case to a serious attorney.
Kreep is on BlogTalkRadio tonight to discuss it, and although a decent guy, he is clearly pissed at Orly for so thoroughly screwing this up.
Clever ...
Do you think the hospital would actually
be complicit in accepting funds or agreeing
to be a party to it?
Now POLITICO is SO brave ... their headline ... NOW.
Brutal ruling quashes birthers’ suit
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/Brutal_ruling_quashes_birthers_suit.html
No offense to those who like me were hoping for a better outcome and some answers, but who didn’t see this one coming? Orly is not the best dentist for this job.
It is illegal to accept a donation that is not in keeping with the intended purpose.
I think you see her and the situation very clearly.
Sorry... but anybody that hitched their wagon to Orly’s horses deserves a little drag through the mud.
Sounds to me like it’s about over.
And a fraudulent basis as well, since no "American birth records" have ever been presented.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. The judge was very reasonable in his decision and bent over backwards to not give Orly what she deserves. Just FWIW, what do you think the “word” is?
parsy, who was expecting this decision
“the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President”
What birth records!? Did I miss somewhere where this so-called judge demanded that the birth certificate be finally released?
How does this make any sense whatsoever? THERE ARE NO BIRTH RECORDS.
Those of us who believe the American public
deserves .. albeit is OBLIGATED to know .. the
confirmation of eligibility of the man who sits in
the highest office in this land, the CIC of the most
lethal arsenal of weaponry and fighting force in the
world ....
didn’t ‘hitch’ a wagon to any verifier or truth
seeker in particular .. at least not as far as I’m
concerned or others who I know want the whole
truth.
We are FOR the unlocking of all the secrets and
sealed vault doors of TRUTH about this very
radical man, with the exceedingly dark, hidden
and contrived past, sealed records, fabrications,
smoke and mirrors, and well-paid hired legal
obfuscation ... to the tune of nearly 2 million
dollars.
WE FIGHT FOR TRUTH . JUSTICE . AND THE AMERICAN WAY
as well as the vital preservation and integrity of
our precious Constitution .. the bedrock of our nation.
Nope. This is a righteous battle against evil, against one usurper who has unlimited resources and his Obots/Enablers to protect him. Time now to do it right
She does seem a bit strange to me. I am not up on all the law. At least she is trying, which is more than you can say for most. She has the ball rolling, maybe someone else needs to make the goal.
Aww ... you're such a fortune teller .. LOL. Here ya go .. go play with these ...
Yah... OK
[chuckle]
Keep fighting the good fight there, pal.
Only two groups left who can obtain justice. The courts have punted. Separation of powers. Congress LOVES a communist president. Congress is controlled by Communists. So who's left to save our constitutional republic? One- We the People could storm the White House and Congress and force them into early retirement. Or Two... the successors to George Washington could once again fight tyranny and reestablish our democratic republic. Military coup? Yep. I'm ready to support.
Well it maybe but rest assured that it will be appealed if Orly can did up a few bucks. But I doubt the 9th Circuit will uphold any appeal. We'll see as it develops.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel [P 28-29]
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
IV. DISPOSITION [p.29-30]
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process.Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009
_______________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
I pray there a some good Americans out
there to continue and fight on.
God bless and save America!
9th Circuit Court? Are you kidding?
Oooops. Change that to: Methinks John Charlton doth protest too much.
parsy, who made the change before anybody else saw it?
1) "We won."
2) "You waited too late to complain. It's too late to fix."
3) "Did I mention, 'We won!'?"
4)" Besides, 'Ain't my job, man!'"
5) "Psssst...WE WON!"
Why am I being welcomed to FR? I’ve been here a year.
It’s about time, someone welcomed you here. I apologize that it took so long. Were you able to find some useful information in those links?
I was welcomed the first week. What am I looking for and what is it that you think I don’t understand? Maybe you misunderstood the photo that I posted...
I detected sarcasm in your post and see nothing in your links that I didn't already know. Thanks though.
Judge Carter conned Orly by getting her to re serve the case, so that he could treat as being against a sitting President. Orly served the papers before Obama was appointed so shouldn’t have needed Quo Warranto. Therefore the Judge ended up dismissing the case on a technicality. Something he said he wouldn’t do. The fix was obviously in from the beginning because the Magistrate Judge introduced the false incorrect service issue right at the start.
Second. Judge Carter said the Congress has power to redefine “Citizen”, and he is correct. But Congress do not have any power to redefine Natural Born Citizen, as that is to be judged according to the intention of the Founders at that time.
No. It was KREEPS delaying the filing that denied the case being treated as being against a proposed President rather than the much tougher task of removing a sitting President.
In related news, Charlie Brown expressed confidence that Lucy van Pelt would not pull the football away this time.
The Nuremburg trial defense taht they were just following orders was held not to be a valid defense if the troops knew that it was a crime to do so.
Our court has just ruled that following orders is a valid defense, especially when the court will never allow the troops to test the validity of the orders.
If troops are never allowed to definitively determine that the order is not valid, is the court then thinking that in their trials in the future at the World Court that those order followers are protected from prosecution?
Could we then retry the NAZIs?
So, is a D.C. Quo Warranto possible? I make a plea for Leo Donofrio, Ed Vieira, Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep and any other Patriotic Conservative attorneys to band together, pool their talents and resources and start the Quo Warranto process as soon as possible. I'm thinking a major push, a Ken Starr Special Prosecutor type effort to push this along. Get a large Patriotic group together, get an office in Washington D.C. and give it the biggest full court press you can. If the word got out this was happening, people would donate a Lot. .
Good point.
I'm not aware that any "American birth records" were ever presented to the Court. The Kenyan records would have served to cast doubt upon the validity of them if the thing had got to the presentation of evidence phase, which it did not.
I predicted long ago that Judge Carter would rule this way.
“Judge Carter conned Orly by getting her to re serve the case, ... Orly served the papers before Obama was appointed...”
Assuming “appointed” = “inaugurated,” this timing factor has been brought up before. The suit was filed 1/20/09 in California. Complaints have to be filed in that Court’s Clerk’s office (not online); that Clerk’s office opens at 10a PST.
Even had Orly been there when they opened the door, Obama would already have been sworn in (12p EST = 9a PST). The Order states that the case was filed after 3p, shortly before the Clerk’s office closed at 4p. By that time the Obamas were heading out for the Inaugural Balls.
The re-service was probably nunc pro tunc, in which case, Judge Carter did the plaintiffs and their counsel a favor. The timing of the filing may seem a technicality, but it is only one basis of the dismissal’s being granted.
Attorneys live by timing and deadlines. Ask any lawyer. Ask PepsiCo. There was a thread on here last night that PepsiCo failed to answer a complaint on time and got a $1.6B judgment levied against them. In the law, timing may not be everything, but it comes pretty close.
I thought the suit was commenced formally by the actual act of service of the pleadings on the Defendant, not when the matter was filed. Is that not the case?
Obama didn’t do a proper Oath of Office till the 21st.
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.