Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president.
In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the conspiracy theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices. Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can't be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can't show they are directly injured by Obama's presence in office.
"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch."
The birthers' suit claims that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief.”
Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper. However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.
"The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing," the government lawyers wrote.
Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008. Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama's election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.
"The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election," the motion states.
The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in "innuendo" and advancing "a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act."
Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, "Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama."
The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. There's a strong chance the session will devolve into something of a sideshow since a couple of plaintiffs in the case are now in a dispute with Taitz and have sought to bring in a different attorney to represent them in the case.
Aha .. my memory didn’t toally fail me:
Just don’t know about the successor counsel
and why it’s not BHO’s personal attorney.
Obama will likely face severe political and legal consequences related to this birth certificate scandal.
But what I’m not sure of is what will happen—after Obama pays his ultimate political and legal price for all this—to the salaried Obama apologists? In particular those on FreeRepublic. It will be disappointing if we never learn of their fate and whether they will be accountable somehow.
That seems like a kind of stupid argument for the DOJ to even include. Just look at the election in 2000. Gore took the election to the courts(not the legislature) when the legitimate results did not suit him. The courts took the case..decided it ‘illegally’....so the Supremes had to step in.
????
Many prayers going out tonight for the Judge,Orly and our country. It occured to me tonight why so many ‘powers that be’ might not want this case to go forward at this time(the recession). In the 3 weeks following Nixon’s resignation, the stock market fell 15%. It was a full 8 years before the market fully recovered. Perhaps they don’t want to lower the BC boom on Obama until the stock market recovers enough to withstand another hit. Just a thought.
Of course they have rights and protection under the law. What people seem to either ignore or not understand is that the courts must operate within the guidelines of the law. Just because something should matter doesn’t mean that the court can legally consider it. The plaintiff has to prove his case. The court can’t do it for him.
If the court is presented with a proper case regarding Obama’s failure to uphold the Constitution, then the court will be able to hear it on the merits. Until then, Obama gets away with his lies. Fair? Nope.
If the court is presented with a proper case regarding Obama’s failure to uphold the Constitution, then the court will be able to hear it on the merits. Until then, Obama gets away with his lies. Fair? Nope.
***
That is why someone should bring a case for a writ quo warranto.
I don't worry about what will happen if..................... The quest for truth and the wearing down the criminal and mighty are worthy goals in and of themselves.
“An honest, upright, straightforward person would have been **HONORED** and pleased to promptly prove that they were natural born and eligible to be president under the Constitution to be president.”
That’s a great point. I’d like to take it a bit further. I say that no honest, upright or straighforward person would want to apologize (as an internet poster) for Obama’s dishonest, devious and insincere behavior.
I have no idea what that even means.
There are dozens and dozens of legal doctrines that are fully articulated in American jurisprudence and specifically common law. To say a doctrine established by precedent "has no force or effect of law", just couldn't be more inaccurate.
He certainly is demonstrating guilty behavior. Obama that is, not the poster : )
If 0bama loses, they will at least live, as they might still be useful in the future.
Since they know how to subvert they would have to be eliminated if he wins, as they would always be a potential threat to the new order.
This happens every single time a totalitarian takes over, yet it is always a total surprise to the victims.
So "smart" yet so naïve...
I downloaded this from scribd and believe this is the actual Order regarding what will transpire tomorrow, Sept. 8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 44
Filed 08/21/2009
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV09-0082 DOC (ANx)
Title: CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al. v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al. DOCKET ENTRY
[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at their respective most recent address of record in this action on this date.] Date:____________ Deputy Clerk: ___________________________________
Date: August 21, 2009
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Kristee Hopkins Courtroom Clerk Not Present Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 Order Striking Filed Documents from the Record and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), filed with the Court on August 18, 2009, and noticed for a hearing on September 14, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (the “Discovery Motion”).
Despite the September 14, 2009 noticed hearing date, Plaintiffs request an “earlier and expedited” hearing on the Discovery Motion. Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby sets a new hearing date on the matter for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.
In addition, the Government filed with this Court on August 19, 2009, a Notice of Failure by Plaintiffs to Properly Effect Service of Process (the “Service Notice”).
By the Service Notice, the Government represents that the United States Attorney’s Office is willing to accept service of process on behalf of all named Defendants “if Plaintiffs would properly file and serve the First Amended Complaint and Summons.”
See Service Notice at 4 (emphasis in original). While the First Amended
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC CIVIL - GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk _kh_ Page 1 of 2
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 44
Filed 08/21/2009
Page 2 of 2
Complaint (“FAC”) was filed with the Court on July 15, 2009,1 it appears that Plaintiffs still have failed to serve both the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office, despite its willingness to accept service of process on behalf of all Defendants.
As such, Plaintiffs are ordered to properly serve the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office on or before September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m. Finally, On August 19, 2009, the Court received an Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (the “Ex Parte Application”) on behalf of Plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Dr. Wiley S. Drake (the “Moving Plaintiffs”), through their attorney, Gary G. Kreep.
The Moving Plaintiffs also seek to file their Ex Parte Application under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. The Moving Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to substitute Gary Kreep as counsel due to their dissatisfaction with Dr. Orly Taitz, Ms. Taitz improperly and without their consent filed a voluntary dismissal of them from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
See Doc. No. 33. As such, they seek reconsideration of the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Court finds that this matter is not appropriate for resolution on an ex parte basis.
Nor does this matter warrant filing documents under seal.
Therefore, the Court also sets this matter for hearing on September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.
At the scheduled hearing time, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the merits of their dispute and to resolve both the motion for reconsideration as well as the substitution of counsel.
In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009,
(1) the Discovery Motion,
(2) the Service Notice, and
(3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
While the Government notes that the FAC was not filed in accordance with General Order 08-02 § V.C.1 (requiring complaints to be filed in the traditional manner rather than electronically), the Court accepts the July 15, 2009 filing.
However, this does not exempt Plaintiffs from effectuating proper service in the traditional manner, as indicated by this order.
See Id. at II.V (“Traditional Service” refers to service other than electronic service as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil [] Procedure).
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC CIVIL - GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk _kh_ Page 2 of 2
1
```````
Sounds like housekeeping to me.
The DOJ attys mention quo warranto and minimize
its use in this case. Check the link to their
Motion I posted above.
Yep!
One freeper speculated that Senators and Reps have so much dirt on each other, they can easily be made to shut up and go along. This could be. Or...
What I noticed is that McCain would not question Obama about his natural born citizenship status even knowing there were questions being asked by a lot of Republicans. The spin was that it was silly and extreme. (The “birth slur was not invented yet.) He also would not pound Obama’s radical ties and activities. He shouted down anyone who brought this up in a serious way during the election.
I think Republicans yielded to his call not to rile the Mexicans preparing to vote with bringing up foreign ineligibility. Juan is like that. He decides certain laws (like immigration laws) and parts of the constitution (like natural born citizenship) are “racist” and he will use his power to undermine them. He thinks this proves that even though he's a whitey, he is not a racist like the other ones.
McCain had great respect for another communist who actually worked with the KGB against Reagan - Ted Kennedy. McCain looks at communists different than most Republicans. They are his dear friends across the aisle. To me communists are domestic enemies to the constitution.
In summary, I think the Republican party permitted Juan to make the call to not make Obama prove his natural born citizenship. Now they are all in the boat with him for not having done their constitutional duty before the election. It is as important to the GOP to keep this out of court as it is to Obama and the DNC. They all broke their oath to the constitution by failing to perform their duty to check and then they have been all covering up by shouting down and smearing those who still want the question answered.
It matters because the constitution matters just like immigration laws matter because they are the law and no one is above the law - supposedly.
All the arguments about standing and whether this one or that one (anyone outside the congress and the SOS) can ask - constitutionally - may be true unless everyone was tricked by a fraudulent Internet COLB posted by Obama. Then it seems to me to be an issue for the court to decide because the constitutional process was undermined.
Orly is presenting a certified copy of the long form birth cert. with an affidavit from the guy who supposedly got it in Kenya. He may be a fake. Obama’s Internet COLB may be a fake. The court may have to decide on this.
Sorry this is so long, Cobra. This is the only post on the thread I am going to make.
That is a good point as well.
A civil action in the form of Quo Warranto is the only remedy to remove Obama. DoJ doesn’t like it because quo warranto actions can be resolved in a matter of days or a few weeks; at most.
“You can’t sue somebody because they should have known something.”
Wrong again. Asbestos suits are filed and won every damn day because of what companies “should have known”...but actually didn’t.
But more to your point, if you have one:
“Todd Bertuzzi suing former coach Crawford, because he should have known...”
“The suit, filed Tuesday in Bronx Supreme Court, argues that the city should have known that...”
“A mom says she’s suing ... what Crocs has known yet long sought to conceal—that its shoes are dangerous on escalators, that these injuries to children could and should have been...”
“In suing, the woman asserted that her ObGyn should have suspected...”
“Second, if the debt collector knew or should have known that the suit was “time-barred” -...”
“Widow, former wife suing in death of two firefighters ... contend that the three companies knew or should have known...”
“suing the school district and the field designer as they should have known...”
********************************************
“I read your posts. They’re illogical. You’re running around in circles.”
Well I certainly knew, or should have known, you would get around to eventually saying that. In fact...I was waiting for it.
There’s a wierd kind of satisfaction in having you call me illogical since it is the last lame argument of a loser.
Woof!
Thanks for posting this info.
Florida, beaches, palm trees, beautiful crystal clear water, coral reefs with tropical fish of all colors, frost free winters, nearly 6 months where every day is close to perfection,low humidity, sunny, tropical southeasterly trade winds, beautiful full moons rising over and reflecting on the ocean, so dark at night you can see every star in the sky, summer thunderstorms at night over the ocean with lightning displays that remind one of the 4th of July, tropical plants and flowers year round, the scent of Plumeria, Ylang Ylang fills the air in the summer, I can fish for dinner (Snapper, Grouper, Hogfish, Snook, Dolphin) or catch some lobster, Stone Crabs in the winter, Fresh KW pink shrimp, sunsets and sunrises that will take your breath away, night blooming jasmine so strong that you can smell it 2 miles out when coming in from night fishing, shopping at Bal Harbour, a dinner on at South Beach or Key West, it may be flat but that big, blue sunny sky and low altitude makes that sky go on forever and ever,....................let me know if you want more. Now your turn. This should be good coming from the former Chicagoan that now lives in Kansas.
A plaintiff has to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions directly caused injury, that the injury is unique to the plaintiff, and that there is a legal remedy. You can’t sue someone for what they should have known if they didn’t have an obligation to act. You’re the one doing the picking and parsing to suit your purpose. And now you’ve resorted to name calling. I don’t converse with impolite people. We’re done.
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.