Posted on 04/16/2010 12:06:30 PM PDT by Elderberry
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ORLY TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 10-151 (RCL)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is the defendant’s motion [18] to dismiss the first amended complaint and Christopher Strunk’s motion [6] to intervene. Also pending before the Court is the plaintiffs motion [17] to consolidate this case with an action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be granted for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to intervene, the opposition, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be denied for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to consolidate, the opposition, and the applicable law, the motion shall be denied without prejudice as this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Why is that?
I think it’s pretty obvious. ////
You know and I know, but you think he knows?
:)
I think everyone on the wrong side knows. They aren’t fooling themselves that they’re being “objective”. They’re just rooting for the wrong team.
From the decision:
"The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held “involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.” Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685. ...
"Even if the Court of Appeals’ precedent did not firmly preclude Ms. Taitz from bringing suit to challenge President Obama’s right to hold office, the one case that discusses the circumstances under which a private person might be able to challenge a public official’s title to office despite the refusal of the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to act, suggests that the “interested person” bringing the action would have had to be actually entitled to the office herself. Newman v. United States ex rel Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547 (1915). Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself."
Sad but true. It seems like they have been doing it for so long now that their ego’s won’t allow them to admit their mistake, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Funny...I sure remember how much we were fans of his during the Clinton years when he was letting some of those lawsuits go forward. Maybe the problem is not with the judge.
You forgot the part about him being a cousin of Barack 0bama.
I haven’t got the time to analysis the opinion, but I do not think the DC courts are categorically omitted from pursuing a Quo Warranto case. You’d have to show me where it states that ONLY an AG can do it.
The Indiana Supreme Court just denied review, so the plaintiff can now ask SCOTUS to review the decision. I doubt they will.
and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
Not sure what you mean there. It is a court decision on what those Constitutional requirements are--it is, in fact, the only court decision in the history of the U.S. to directly rule on that issue; prior cases discussed the issue only in dicta (they were not actual challenges to a President's eligibility).
I'm not rooting for Obama, but I'm enough of a lawyer to know that no court is going to remove a sitting President, just like every court up to and including SCOTUS refused to rule on constitutional challenges to the Vietnam War.
There was a way to get a court ruling on Obama's NBC status-- another candidate on the primary or general election ballot in a state could have brought a lawsuit under state election law to take his name off the ballot. No one did, and such lawsuits must be filed before election day. The Electoral College then voted and Congress certified the results, so no court can now touch the issue.
Congress can impeach Obama, or an election law challenge can be brought by a candidate on the 2012 ballot, or the people can vote him out in 2012. Those are the only mechanisms for getting him out of office now.
This is an extremely dangerous decision, it means that any child born on US soil would be eligible for the highest office in the land, that is clearly not what the Founders had in mind. Appellate courts have been overturned many times, we better pray this one is.
As I mentioned in my first post to you, that would include anchor baby's, even Osama's kid.
Did you see the video of Thomas saying that the courts was deliberately evading the issue?
courts = court
So a “sitting president” is sort of like a God-king - “the king can do no wrong”.
I thought that one of the reasons we had the first American Revolution.
No, Congress can impeach him and the people can vote him out. But nothing in the Constitution gives the courts any role in the process.
Your list proves nothing other than to suggest you enjoy not seeing any progress in this case.
Why is that?
I favor using the CRIMINAL justice system not the civil system to resolve this issue. Lawsuits by individuals obviously haven’t yielded any positive results in a year and a half’s worth of attempts.
I favor a criminal investigation of Obama for forgery and fraud before a Grand Jury that could then subpoena his birth documents for examination by experts with testimony taken under oath.
Riiiiight, that's the first time I've ever seen one of your posts on these threads.
No assumptions or editorializing needed, it speaks for its self.
OH?I missed that one.
Hey, if 61 dismissed or denied lawsuits including 7 at the Supreme Court is what turns you on, far be it from me to suggest something different to you. Enjoy!
If watching your Country be destroyed and disrupting those who are trying to stop it turns you on then get lost.
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.