Na na na na na you have no Standing

Creating Orwellian Worldview ^ | 9/11/09 | Alaphiah

[Alaphiah123]

“Na na na na na you have no Standing” has been the legal argument that President Barry Soetoro, his attorneys and now the attorneys of the U.S. Justice Department, have used to have dozens eligibility suits dismissed throughout the country.

As legally profound and convincing as that argument is on September 8, 2009 in a California Federal Court, Judge of the Central District David Carter has for the first time since this issue has been brought up has scheduled a case to be heard on its merits. Image that someone in black robes has finally said okay let’s get to the bottom of this controversy once and for all. That ought to make all of the anti-birthiers happy.

The first case was filed before Barry Soetoro received the Democrat’s nomination to be the Democrat candidate for the presidency. It was filed in Philadelphia by attorney Philip Berg a Hillary Clinton supporter who feared that if Sen. Soetoro received the Democrat Nomination Republicans would be able to use the fact that there was were questions surrounding the birth of Sen. Soetoro however Sen. John McCain never raised those questions. Democrats in the DNC all knew of the questions regarding a lack of a birth certificate because they were served notice by Mr. Berg in fact all of the major players knew but no one did anything about it for whatever reason(s)...

[mad_as_he$$]

And it will probably work in many cases.

[Non-Sequitur]

Still the trial is not guaranteed. Carter has ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on a motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery as filed by Dr. Orly Taitz.

Why did he bury this part?

[Mr. K]

"[...] Republicans would be able to use the fact that there was were questions surrounding the birth of Sen. Soetoro however Sen. John McCain never raised those questions"

Figures... McClame is an incompetant RINO who saddled us with Obambi

[LegalEagle61]

Yeah but you need an iron clad argument to get a case dismissed on Fed Rule Civ Procedure 12 (b) and this Judge himself has said that most do not succeed.

[gov_bean_ counter]

... and as many times as McGoofball has thrown Sarah Palin under the bus since then you'd think he has her attached to a dam&ed slinky.

[DrC]

“Yeah but you need an iron clad argument to get a case dismissed on Fed Rule Civ Procedure 12 (b) and this Judge himself has said that most do not succeed.”

Sorry I’m not a legal eagle. Does the judge’s decision mean that the issue of standing already has been resolved or is that in fact one of the issues to be heard on Oct. 5? If it’s been resolved, then this decision seems like a huge victory/step forward. But it’s still to be resolved based on arguments to be heard Oct. 5, then I’m less clear on what the “big deal” is here.

I like the idea of a federal judge confronting Obama’s lawyers point blank with a simple question: why are you wasting your client’s resources and the court’s time with all sorts of legal obfuscation when it would be much simpler and cheaper to just produce the long form BC? But I’m still unclear on the likelihood of this happening on Oct. 5. Keeping my fingers crossed.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah but you need an iron clad argument to get a case dismissed on Fed Rule Civ Procedure 12 (b) and this Judge himself has said that most do not succeed.

Lack of standing is not a 12 (b) motion for dismissal. That's what's tripped up all the cases to date and that's the first of the three motions the defense makes.

[MrLuigi]

I don’t know why.
But all that is really need is Discovery, no need for a trial really.
Discovery would resolve the issue.
Either he is, or he ain’t.

Let’s get pass this.

[Velveeta]

Out of sheer curiosity, Non-Sequitur:

Would you like to see one of these cases make it to discovery - or not?

[campaignPete R-CT]

,.iBut all that is really need is Discovery, no need for a trial really.

You are on to something here. Indeed, the theory is that a judge would allow discovery .... and then afterward, he will realize that there is no Legitimate case before him. But he hadn't thought of that at the time he allowed Discovery. Invent a case, allow Discovery, then the evidence acquired through Discovery ... will lead to the real case. (This sounds more like what a detective would do. But I'd like more information on this approach.)

[campaignPete R-CT]

I’d like to answer that question, too. All of us would like a lot of things. I’d like the Cleveland Browns to make it to the Super Bowl. But if somebody asked me for the odds, I’d say they were very low and “joining the cheering section” would not help their chances.

Out of sheer curiosity, Velveeta: would you like your state Representative to start holding hearings regarding ballot access and eligibility for federal offices? Are there not about 5000 state legislators in the country? How many of them succeeded in getting hearings held this year? is the answer still ZERO?

[DaveTesla]

The truth has a funny of revealing itself eventually.

[steviep96]

Of course, no judge is going to allow cause of action to go to discovery in the hopes of finding something that creates a cause of action.

There seems to be a huge huge huge misunderstanding here of what the discovery process is.

If you are banking on discovery to prove your case, you probably don’t have much of a case.

[Non-Sequitur]

Would you like to see one of these cases make it to discovery - or not?

I would like to see the law followed. Establishing standing to sue is not an easy task, nor should it be. Those restrictions are in place to protect you and me, as well as Obama.

Having said that the yes, I'd love to see what the plaintiffs would come up with during discovery. I'd say that it would put the matter to rest, one way or the other, but at this point the mighty hand of God could come out of the clouds and deposit a long version of Obama's Hawiian birth certificate on Judge Carter's desk and a goodly percentge of birthers would still say, "Yeah, but..." And I'd pay real money to see Orly Tatiz actually have to operate in a court of law. Based on transcripts I've read to date it would be a real hoot. But in all honesty I'm not expecting that to happen soon. I don't want to see the law or the legal process violated or abused to get Obama. Or to protect him, either. I want the law to take its course, come what may.

[Non-Sequitur]

But all that is really need is Discovery, no need for a trial really. Discovery would resolve the issue. Either he is, or he ain’t.

No trial, no discovery.

[Kenny Bunk]

the long form BC

Suppose The Anointed One, Leader for Life (ALL) produces some kind of BC. So what? He is still not ... and never can be ... considered a "Natural Born Citizen." That would require both parents to be citizens at the time of the blessed event. The guy who he said is his Papa wasn't. End of the frickin' story.

What? Is everyone hoping that there is a different Papa? Since Papa wasn't an America Citizen ... ever ... what bloody difference does it make where he was born? Stanley could have dropped her foal on the White House steps on the 4th of July and Obama Jr. still wouldn't be a "Natural Born Citizen."

What I think the Team Obama lawyers are doing is preparing a long laundry list of points that they can tenaciously defend as an obfuscation of the main event: i.e., their client is not a "Natural Born Citizen." They have succeeded in confusing an awful lot of people with their equating of "Native Born" with "Natural Born," with their conflation of the COLB with the BC, and the mysterious statements from Hawaii.

Look, we know the guy lies. He's had several different SS#s, he probably told Occidental and Columbia he was a foreign citizen and presented a foreign passport in order to scam aid, he denied using Soetoro as an alias on his bar app, he denied drug use and he ignored traffic violations on that app, too... OK, he's a bad guy ... and he is still not a "Natural Born Citizen."

What happens if we prove all of this in discovery and he remains POTUS because no one addresses the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement ... or it's dismissed higher up? The fraud and lies are grounds for impeachment, but not constitutional issues, per se, and with the Democrat death grip on Congress, I think impeachment is a very long shot indeed. Speaking of long shots, there is now confusion and infighting on the anti-Obama team in California. The Judge Carter seems fair-minded, but he still may not be able to refute defense motions against discovery, or for dismissal. This is far from any kind of "done deal." It is a step in a good direction

I truly do not have much hope for this man being forced from office through actions in the courts, even though he is, on the face of it, ineligible to hold that office. Rather, I think his skid has been greased for 2012 by Hillary, who will try to succeed him, who is just as radical, and probably twice as dangerous.

If he leaves office without resolution of what a "Natural Born Citizen" is or isn't, he will have succeeded on an important piece of his main agenda: weakening the traditions of America, preparatory to radicalizing the nation.

[steviep96]

I need here to file suit within 100 miles of me. I would miss work to watch her in a preliminary hearing.

I mean, she called a surprise witness during a hearing on a motion. There is no price on that kind of entertainment.

[steviep96]

When I decided to start posing on these threads, I made the decision not to engage in this argument. Mainly because it is:

a) bunk, and
b) a religion among segments of the birther movement.

I will just say that I believe 225 years of American judicial tradition strongly suggests you are wrong, and I don’t care what the Swiss say.

[OrioleFan]

Since Congress was more interested in vetting McLame eligibility than Zero (didn’t even consider Dumbo), then they abdicated that responsibility to the people of the United States. The people bringing this action do have a standing. What remains to be seen is if this Clinton appointed judge will see this through to discovery, and then rule effectively when Barry Sotero tells the court to FO.