Federal Judge to hear Obama Birth Certificate on the Merits!

Emails ^ | JULY 13TH, 2009 | Alan Peters

[FARS]

Obama eligibility case will be heard on the merits !! Please distribute everywhere.

At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter reportedly said the following: 1. There will be a trial. 2. It will be heard on the merits. 3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues. 4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority. 5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC. 6. Judge stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

[MHGinTN]

#26 in that series puts the lie to Barry’s claim that Ayers was just someone in his neighborhood, and Axelrod’s lower layer of lies including ‘maybe they met because their kids attend the same school.’ [Mara Liasson liked that lie so much, she repeated it wihtout challenge on Brit HUme’s FOX program, right before the election! ... And folks want to believe FOX is fairna and balanced, not just another enemedia in the tank for the federal oligarchs.]

[MHGinTN]

You asked of Lucy T: "Do you have any links to some statement, by someone, representing Barry, that releasing his long form would be embarrassing?"
You have worded that question in a typical Axelrod updated layering method: instead of the generic where did Barry's lawyers state that 'disclosure would be an embarrassment to their client', you have asked 'where would we find his lawyers pleading releasing his long form would be embarrassing'. It is that sort of shifting in midstream which allows the guilty to skate via fabricated confusion, where some are stilla ddressing the original question and others are pressing the new version.

The answer pleading in the Berg case now under court seal is where his lawyers pleaded with the judge that disclosing the requested materials (the actual long form birth certificate and the other requested material) in the Berg suit would be an embarrassment to their client ... they didn't specify what you have tried to pinpoint.

You can go to the Berg site and do a little researching for yourself, or you can find the long thread here at FR which has copied the pleadings to that thread. [Lucy T, would you post the link for this poor confused soul to follow?]

[LucyT]

-

Thanks, MHGinTN.

Vendome, here is a link to the long thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com:80/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts

-

[cynwoody]

That about ices it, does it not? It establishes he was born in Honolulu and is therefore eligible. The part about Indonesian citizenship is inoperative because it is at best true under Indonesian law only, an American minor being incapable of giving up his US citizenship.

IOW, not a good piece of evidence to introduce if you are trying to prove Zero ineligible.

[frog in a pot]

First, speaking for most, we certainly appreciate your participation on Free Republic.

Hopefully, you will agree that the Congress is the only body that can unravel this potential scam. Further, that it may need a nudge from the USSC.

Assume for the moment that a defect occurred when the Congress ignored its obligation and authority pursuant to the 12th and 20th Amendments and 3 USC 15, to assure that no substantial irregularities occurred during the work of the Electoral College. (One of the Kerchner v Obama arguments) Assume the Democrats ignore or defeat any floor action brought now to correct such defect.

In your opinion, would one or more Republican members of Congress have a means of bringing such an issue to the USSC?

[seekthetruth]

Major Cook Update:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2294045/posts?page=22#22

[David]

To your 705: First, speaking for most, we certainly appreciate your participation on Free Republic. Hopefully, you will agree that the Congress is the only body that can unravel this potential scam. Further, that it may need a nudge from the USSC. Assume for the moment that a defect occurred when the Congress ignored its obligation and authority pursuant to the 12th and 20th Amendments and 3 USC 15, to assure that no substantial irregularities occurred during the work of the Electoral College. (One of the Kerchner v Obama arguments) Assume the Democrats ignore or defeat any floor action brought now to correct such defect. In your opinion, would one or more Republican members of Congress have a means of bringing such an issue to the USSC?

First, thank you for the compliment--they are always appreciated.

In thinking about how this might get resolved, I have come to exactly the same conclusion as you do--the first and most appropriate forum is Congress on a motion to reconsider their action in certifying the Electorial College outcome.

And no, I don't think it even gets to the floor unless the Dems are on board. I believe it takes a motion to suspend the Rules and even then, I have not looked at the House rules in many years and am uncertain how it would work procedurally--but I don't think there is any substantive outcome that would be actionable anywhere absent participation of the Dem majority.

And I also tend to doubt you get even that far absent some negotiated agreement between the House Dems and Obama.

In that setting, and the charm in that setting is, you get out of the problem with creating a Constitutional crisis.

Absent an agreed outcome along those lines with the House acting to restate the election outcome down to Biden as acting President pending election of a qualified person, the result is a Constitutional conflict that might bring the government down.

The other obvious party with a direct interest in the outcome that would have the power to act to bring the issue to a head is the Military. Action by the Military would precipitate a crisis and it would seem that at least initially, the Military could act most productively by attempting to deal through some intermediary, directly with Congress. Don't use the Judge Advocate General's office--hire outside private lawyers to attempt to get a deal with Congress.

[Vendome]

“_ˡˡ_ˡˡ”

[LucyT]

What? What?

That’s cute, but I don’t read Hieroglyphics.

[LucyT]

-

# 707.

Following David...

-

[null and void]

Still a few republicans with a spines could put the issue on the table, then beat the dems into a pulp for refusing to even address the issue, obstructing discussion, censorship, etc.

If only we had even a single republican with a spine.

*sigh*

[Vendome]

Actually that wasn’t intended for you but was to MHGinTN.

I didn’t care for his patronizing or condescending tone. Or his marginal attempt to school me in my questions and lead me around the discussion with and by his questions.

Asking about the lawyer statement is a direct and narrow line of questioning. It is a good question but, my question dealt with the broader possibility of anyone else representing Obama’s position, with ties or responsibility for doing so, making a similar statement. That of course leads to the next question “On what basis”.

The follow up to that would be “why didn’t the judge ask what would be embarrassing?” and “Let’s see it in chambers”.

Anyway, MHGinTN was the third person to address me in this manner, this morning and I don’t care for it.

Etiquette: It is how you treat people that way you would want to be treated. Without making to much noise.

If you can’t be polite, then at some point you have to expect a rather acerbic or forceful response

I included you on the response because MHGinTN had included you in previous post.

[MHGinTN]

Until Barry's poll numbers sink sufficiently to alert the democrat criminal enterprise that thier leader is about to be rejected and them along with him, they will not allow anything to endanger the head of their power structure.

You would think that Steny Hoyer, lusting as he does to become Speaker, would bring this to the floor and push it through because it would impugn the Pelosi leadership, and exposing her ineptness would be an 'out' from responsibility for the democrats facing 2010 re-election.

There is little doubt that a number of democrat offciails knew Barry was not strictly Constitutionally eligible. But Nacy Pelosi's hide is the primary pelt hanging out there to be poofed because she endorsed his nominee eligibility at the state's level and then squelched any possibility to object in January whent he EC votes were received.

The key to getting this affirmative action bastard figure out of the Oval Office is how it can be done without exposing the democrats for their complicity. If a way is not forthcoming, the criminal enterprise will not allow it to move forward reagrdless of how it 'looks', because the democrats know the enemedia will paint them innocent regardless of the truth the enemedia has in hand.

[MHGinTN]

Awww, does someone need a cookie?

[Vendome]

Oh you are still around? Maybe you read between the lines on my previous post?

You are a pretty rude fellow.

[David]

Until Barry's poll numbers sink sufficiently to alert the democrat criminal enterprise that thier leader is about to be rejected and them along with him, they will not allow anything to endanger the head of their power structure. You would think that Steny Hoyer, lusting as he does to become Speaker, would bring this to the floor and push it through because it would impugn the Pelosi leadership, and exposing her ineptness would be an 'out' from responsibility for the democrats facing 2010 re-election. There is little doubt that a number of democrat offciails knew Barry was not strictly Constitutionally eligible. But Nacy Pelosi's hide is the primary pelt hanging out there to be poofed because she endorsed his nominee eligibility at the state's level and then squelched any possibility to object in January whent he EC votes were received. The key to getting this affirmative action bastard figure out of the Oval Office is how it can be done without exposing the democrats for their complicity. If a way is not forthcoming, the criminal enterprise will not allow it to move forward reagrdless of how it 'looks', because the democrats know the enemedia will paint them innocent regardless of the truth the enemedia has in hand.

That may have been true up until the Military got involved. But in the present setting, you can't run the Military effectively at this point because you have no authority to issue orders. You have no Commander in Chief.

That's a relatively urgent proposition. Suppose someone invaded? Suppose one of your offshore Military adventures goes South--maybe because the Russians or some other adversary realizes that the Military is handicapped; how do you act?

I continue to wonder what the Joint Chiefs are thinking about--they can't really tolerate the current condition.

[Munz]

thank you very much, greatly appreciated.

[MestaMachine]

It was an April Fool post. AP was African Press.

[Munz]

>Absent an agreed outcome along those lines with the House acting to restate the election outcome down to Biden as acting President pending election of a qualified person, the result is a Constitutional conflict that might bring the government down.<

If we had real republicans in the senate, they would all vow at this point not to vote on, discuss or allow discussion (through filibuster) unanimously, to suspend all business until Obama provided a release of his his actual records sought including - long form, college transcripts, passports, social security records, selective service registration, high school records, elementary records, health records (including his family history.

I just want him to sign waivers for these people to have the records made available. I do not want them coming from Obama himself because they could be altered.

If our senators would stop all business it may look bad in the MSM, but it would restore their base support and gain quite a few new supporters. Not to mention the money would roll in and their power even in a minority would be somewhat restored.

[Munz]

>I continue to wonder what the Joint Chiefs are thinking about—they can’t really tolerate the current condition.<

me too. They for the most part are very serious minded people who have to wonder what will happen to the troops under their command and what this issue is doing to the troops thinking and morale.