Posted on 10/06/2009 7:39:17 AM PDT by Alaphiah123
October 5, 2009 was the day that Judge David O. Carter scheduled to hear arguments for dismissal of the case regarding the eligibility of Barry Soetoro to be President of the United States of America. Judge Carter did in fact hear the arguments presented by both parties, the Government for President Soetoro and Attorneys Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep who represent several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.
After hearing both sides argue their points Judge Carter informed the parties that whatever his decision they both had the right to appeal and then he informed them that his decision would be continued to a later date.
(Excerpt) Read more at creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com ...
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
I hear you Brotha! I pray America does as well!
I believe this is the reason the judge kept asking questions. He was trying to find a way that they either had standing or that they had judiciary (sp?) rights. I do believe he now needs time to try to figure out how he can legally move forward without getting himself in trouble.
He really seems like he wants to go forward with discovery! This whole mess he realizes could be settled by the show of a piece of paper. I’m sure he wonders why it isn’t being done and that there is corruption going on here.
I pray he sees the light and a way to prove standing or what ever juciciary? is necessary to result in discovery!
What this says is there are some valid points in this case otherwise the Judge would have summarily dismissed the case. Now the Judge has the hard part. How is he going to handle the truth? These are the kind of kodak moments for eternity. Ouch.
[decision would be continued to a later date]
Yeah yeah, we know, next MONDAY.
I don’t know if it means anything, but I do find it curious that the judge told both parties that they had the right to appeal any decision. Why would the judge do that if he was just going to dismiss on “lack of standing”? If the people didn’t have standing to bring the original suit then wouldn’t they lack any standing to appeal it as well (at least from the judge’s perspective)?
Good questions, I think. I don’t know the answers. I pray that is judge does the right thing!
Continued. Legalese for “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
I hope the judge doesn’t wimp out. We, the people all have standing to know if our ELECTED leader is qualified. Look what Obama has wrought already.
Obama should produce his records.
If a judge dismisses a case on any grounds, including the lack of standing, the plaintiffs have the right to appeal the dismissal, because the appellate court may disagree with him on the standing issue.
What is actually puzzling is that he said that "either side" could appeal-- if he denies the motion to dismiss, the defendants do not have an automatic right to appeal.
“I do believe he now needs time to try to figure out how he can legally move forward without getting himself in trouble.”
How can he “get in trouble”? If he messes up, legally, then a superior court will just overturn the decision. “Getting in trouble” is not a valid reason.
Personally, I don’t think Judge Carter ever seriously considered actually letting this case get to discovery. He is just being a more “polite” judge than others.
I don’t think he should get so wrapped around the axle about “standing.” Alan Keyes has standing. Now, the question about if the court could properly bring about a “remedy” is a different question. I personnally don’t think a court can force a POTUS out of office (that takes congress). However, IF a court should find, based upon examination of evidence and the constitution, that POTUS Obama was not actually eligible to hold the office...that would be rememdy enough. In that it would force a series of moves that would get it before the SCOTUS...where IF they upheld a “not qualified” ruling, the Congress would have to remove Obama from office, or at least keep him, or others like him, from running again. Congress is bound to follow SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution. Otherwise the balance of powers is messed up and there is no true rule of law.
So is your thought that the judge inadvertently indicated he will find for discovery and then the defendant could appeal?
Actually, the opposite. In federal court, the normal rule is that the losing party can appeal only when the whole case is over. So an order denying the motion to dismiss and ordering discovery is not appealable-- the case is continuing. I think he may have inadvertently signaled that he is going to dismiss the case, because the plaintiffs could appeal that.
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.