Posted on 11/09/2009 5:32:54 PM PST by rxsid
Orly knew that Judge Carter had hired a clerk from Perkins Coie before Judge Carter dismissed her case. Federal law is clear that a motion to recuse a judge for bias has to be made before he rules, because otherwise a party could game the system by accepting the judge's ruling if they win but demanding a do-over if they lose.
Orly knows that this is the law because one of the things Judge Land sanctioned her $20,000 for was waiting to move to disqualify him until after he ruled. For her to do the same thing again is just begging for more sanctions.
I notice that you're having a problem getting the legal community to agree with your reasoning.
Ooooh. Low blow.
I thought anti-birthers believed that the (putative) COLB he displayed on-line WAS -- according to anti-birthers -- a TRUE copy of his birth certificate?
What he has produced may or may not be a true copy of his certificate of live birth. Since I've never seen a hard copy of it and since I'm not an expert in forged documents then I can't say one way or the other.
Yes, we ALL agree with you!
Sure you would. As I've stated before, the clouds could part, angels could sing, and the mighty hand of God could descend from Heaven with a certified copy of Obama's long form birth certificate and you Birthers would say, "Yeah, but how do we know it's not fake?"
So what IS your beef with those that are skeptical -- like yourself -- of the (putative)COLB Obama has displayed on-line?
No beef. Just amusement at that antics of the moronic Orly Taitz and her legion of devoted followers.
Don't you agree that he should show his Birth certificate -- as outlined above?
Nothing requires that he do so.
Thank you, MHG. I wasn’t aware of that line of reasoning.
Honestly, I don’t know very much about Smith.
I wonder what motivated Sinclair to send his letter to judge. His affidavit is a matter of public record. Perhaps I missed something, but Sinclair’s explanation leaves me scratching my head.
It seems that Orly’s star has burned out here, 2 months ago this thread would have had 300+ posts by now. I have sad.
Don't worry. I have faith that Orly will soon find another sucker in the military willing to throw away their career and we'll be back to square one with the birthers cheering on their tried and true recipe for failure and us "afterbirthers" laughing at Orly's mangling of the legal profession.
It'll be the same thing all over again, with the same results.
I was able to find more about Sinclair’s issues with Taitz. And I agree this has little or nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility. I’d love to see Mr. Young’s murderer brought to justice. But no one wants to touch Obama’s alleged bisexuality.
http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/no-rhyme-nor-reason-save-love/#comment-120
That's because we're in uncharted territory. Once we have quo warranto in the proper venue the usurper will be exposed. Count on it.
You and the other after-birthers will be proven wrong...
Thank you for your reply, Non-Sequitur!
Just one more point, please:
I said: “Don’t you agree that he should show his Birth certificate — as outlined above?”
You said:
“Nothing requires that he do so.”
__________________________________________________________
I could be wrong but your answer seems a tad evasive.
I asked you if you thought he SHOULD show his Birth certificate, not whether you thought he could be legally compelled to show it.
Let me put it another way:
Would you at least agree with me that showing his birth certificate would be the proper and ethical thing — the noble thing — for him to do?
STE=Q
Seems they are holding up their understanding of the Constitution. A sitting president can be removed by congress only.
I’m sure this is likely to get a barrage of he is there illegally posts. One of the requirements for courts to take cases is that they can grant a remedy. If they can’t remove him, what remedy can they grant?
NS wants zero to stay right where he is.
Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
By Dan Nakaso, The Honolulu Advertiser
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago....”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among “birthers” that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Despite Fukino’s statements, the issue has continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves.
CNN’s Lou Dobbs demanded Obama’s original birth certificate. CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of Lou Dobbs Tonight that the issue is a “dead” story, Kline told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Sunday.
In an e-mail, the Times reported, Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health officials.
In 2001, Hawaii’s paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.
Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is but said, “We have backups for all of our backups.”
A congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of island statehood was delayed Monday.
The resolution includes a clause noting Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961” appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.
As the issue came to a vote, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present. The House later voted 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.
Birthers denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
I can hardly wait.
Why should he when it isn't required? Bush didn't. Clinton didn't. No prior president has had to. If the law required it then I'd say that Obama should provide it. Since the law does not then I don't think he should be forced to do what no other president has had to do. Unless, of course, actual evidence is uncovered indicating that Obama wasn't born here.
More on Sinclair and Taitz this morning:
http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/no-rhyme-nor-reason-save-love/#comment-122
If the Courts are so impotent, then they can stand aside and let the PEOPLE HANDLE IT. CO
Do you know who has standing to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto under the District of Columbia statute?
And do what exactly? Are they stopping someone from petitioning their representative to start impeachment proceedings?
That's a great question. I would think that Alan Keyes for example would qualify as an "interested person" under the statute. Leo Donofrio has indicated on his blog that "something" is ongoing with regards to DC quo warranto that requires his silence. I'm hopeful in the meantime and will check his blog periodically.
Here by the way is the 16-3503 statute.
The statute says that only the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General can file a quo warranto action without prior court approval. Anyone else has to first ask the Attorney General to file, and, if the AG refuses, has to ask the court's permission to file. The court will allow it to be filed only if the requester is a "person interested" and only if the petition is "sufficient in law."
I am willing to bet that when Leo Donofrio files, the court will say that he is not a person interested and that his petition is not sufficient in law, and will cite Judge Land's and Judge Carter's decisions as precedent. But time will tell.
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.