Posted on 09/14/2009 9:09:33 PM PDT by FARS
Early Discovery Video
(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...
Yes he must have gotten hold of some of these aspirins from the factory Billy bombed???
One would assume that if the Keyes cases survives the dismissal motion in October, and the judge set a tentative trial date for late January, that discovery would move in a helluva hurry. It all really comes down to one piece of paper (that could have been produced months and millions of dollars ago).
Apparently the Hawaiian Chapter of AXJ has discovered the original divorce documents filed in 1964, and among them has discovered that Stanley Ann Dunham (with the help of others) did in fact present a Certificate of Live Birth of a child born in Mobassa, Kenya, w
Jurisdiction. They can try...I’m sure, and they can take it up with the 9th Circus court after Obama gets his clocked cleaned after the case went to court.
Yeah, I know. I suppose his premise is that Obama was not found out to be illegitimate.
If you think I like to defend Obama or that I AM defending Obama, you're out of your God-forsaken mind! You only have to read my 2000+ comments in-thread right here on FR to see that I condemn Obama every chance I get. Or you could follow me around on Twitter.
You simply don't like my criticism of Orly or you don't like my position on the issue of standing as it relates to some of these eligibility cases. Either way, you're out of your God-forsaken mind if you think I'm taking up for Obama.
Hardly LoL! Just pissed with putting up with trolls.
You simply don't like my criticism of Orly or you don't like my position on the issue of standing as it relates to some of these eligibility cases. Either way, you're out of your God-forsaken mind if you think I'm taking up for Obama.
You seem to ignore that the words of the judge that there is little chance that Obama can dodge this case based on procedural grounds. Here's another little tidbit for you:
From the OC article:
"During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion."
The operative phrase above is "Rarely succeed." Gee what does that mean?... Obama better get ready to defend himself in court. Remember his words that I posted to you earlier coupled with the statement above. Obama is going to have to argue his eligibility case. ...since I doubt he's going to respond to discovery that will have to be forced upon him. Mr. no credibility in the judge's eyes.
I'm not a troll. If you can't see that from my comments on FR, then there's no reason for futher discussion. So you're off the hook. You can stop posting comments to me.
You seem to ignore that the words of the judge that there is little chance that Obama can dodge this case based on procedural grounds.
I have neither ignored Judge Carter's words nor ever suggested, not one, single time, that Obama would be able to dodge this case on procedural grounds. Now you're just making things up.
The rule of Federal Procedure to which Judge Carter was referring (12b) relates specifically a defense based on any of the following:
(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.
What you are ignoring or fail to understand is that the defense motion to dismiss was based on more than just simple procedural issues from Rule 12b. Judge Carter has given absolutely no indication how he will rule on the substantive issues in the motion. So you can stop quoting the judge's statements to me. I've read them all long before now.
I have been looking for that thread and can't seem to find it. Could you post a link here, please?
“During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion.”
Bookmarked.
And yes, I've read those 12B rules before too, which Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger West was arguing them in his motion to dismiss.
Oh I understand alright. See below.
From OC article: "the primary thrust of that motion, scheduled to be heard by Carter on Oct. 5, is that the issue of whether or not Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be president is a matter for Congress and the Electoral College to decide - not the courts."
Which fall under these two rules you posted above:
"(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;"
Which the judge has said have hardly any chance to succeed that I posted to you in number 167.
So I'll summarize it for you. Obama is arguing the plaintiffs do not have jurisdiction, However, the judge said their argument [the defendants] 'rarely succeed'. That means they have little chance to sway him on 12B rules.
Thank you.
The Jig is up
If she is that confident of this, then she and others must have the goods on Obama and perhaps there is more that what we know that she and others investigated.
Remember the NWO people, Communist thugs, Obama, you can’t fight a futile battle against the GOD of Israel and expect to win...
Yes, it's in Obama's motion to dismiss. See post 172 below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2339872/posts?page=172#172
BIRTHERS : “ CAN YOU HEAR US NOW !!!!! “
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.