Birther or believer? (Judge rules in favor of trial challenging Obama's eligibility)

Beaufort Observer ^ | July 14, 2009 | Elizabeth Sauls

[Calpernia]

>>>>The man was duly served back in January prior to his swearing in

Actually, that isn't true. He was served February 10. The case was back dated.

Actual thread when service happened: White House Refused to be Served Pleadings

From the Docket:

05/18/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by plaintiffs upon Barack H Obama served on 2/10/2009, answer due 3/2/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by not indicated statute, upon mail clerk at Department of Justice. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not returned. (twdb) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

The actual document: Obama v. Keyes It is dated at the bottom of this document as January 19.

Open it and look for yourself. Then check the document properties. It shows January 26th as the initial creation.

[Calpernia]

Yes, February 10. That means he wasn’t served back in January.

[David]

>>>>The man was duly served back in January prior to his swearing in Actually, that isn't true. He was served February 10. The case was back dated. Actual thread when service happened: White House Refused to be Served Pleadings From the Docket: 05/18/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by plaintiffs upon Barack H Obama served on 2/10/2009, answer due 3/2/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by not indicated statute, upon mail clerk at Department of Justice. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not returned. (twdb) (Entered: 05/19/2009) The actual document: Obama v. Keyes It is dated at the bottom of this document as January 19. Open it and look for yourself. Then check the document properties. It shows January 26th as the initial creation.

I think what that package of documents says is that he wasn't in fact served until February. Point of the argument was to get him served before he because President because if you don't get him served until after he is President, the rules about what you can force him to do in response are different.

Service of Process is a legal act--you have a statute which says "here is how you serve process on this person"--question is when you did the acts that comply. Lawyers and process servers then file the piece of paper--but that is why you have arguments including this one--argument is that the legal act that was done wasn't sufficient.

In this case, that is what the judge held. Reason why is best set out in the early WND article--the lawyer didn't get the process server to do it in a manner which complied with the statute.

[Calpernia]

Bump

It was very nice of the judge to allow proper service yesterday. He didn’t have to do that.

[real_patriotic_american]

It’s posted here on FR.

You wrote- “I want to see the LA Times story when it’s published.”

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Got it !

[real_patriotic_american]

John, experts are challenging Obama’s COLB as a forgery.

[real_patriotic_american]

Yes and their not admitting it! (lol)

You wrote- “So is the left freaking out yet this morning over te news? :>”

[real_patriotic_american]

Right on!

You wrote- “A trial date will be set and Taitz “will immediately request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.””

[real_patriotic_american]

I agree!

You wrote- “........ we have a right to know why he is too afraid to show the certificate in court.”

[MHGinTN]

Thank you ... no wonder the Judge is somewhat ticked at both sides!

[MHGinTN]

You do the coolest visuals! How do you do it, m’Lady?

[real_patriotic_american]

Very, very true!

You wrote- “Orly knows first hand what an Obama republic would be like.”

[Calpernia]

Having a great summer. Thanks for asking. How about you?

[real_patriotic_american]

They were first snickering at Orly Taitz, but now they are “eating crow.” Judge Carter said-

“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.”

Judge David O. Carter is the Judge that we were looking for.

[David]

It was very nice of the judge to allow proper service yesterday. He didn’t have to do that.

Yes and No.

As I now read the report, what he did was permit service on the US Attorney for the President of the US. Appears to transform the case into a suit against the President of the US to remove him from office.

Plaintiff needs to have standing; to state a case for relief.

Citizen Keyes has some trouble with those issues.

Even if you think this judge might let him skate by, an appellate court won't.

Way you might win that is when the judge lets you get discovery and then gets you to trial and you prove that he was born in Kenya--the appeal on the grounds that the case was improperly laid doesn't exactly reverse the result.

Puts a real premium on Obama's counsel not to ever let the case get to trial.

They move to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and lack of standing in the plaintiff; even if they lose, they can probably get an interlocutory appeal.

At present, I am inclined to view this as another loss--but hopeful; maybe it can be turned around.

[Calpernia]

Not correct. You missed a few of my posts.

[john mirse]

1. There will be a trial. WOW, if true, that explains WHY "Fight the Smears" and Obama's other birth information is being wiped off the internet. It was probably ordered by White House lawyers, sensing LAST week that the judge might go down this path. I called Archive.org last week about WHY "Fight the Smears" is no longer archived. At first, she asked if I was the owner (I should have said "yes" ...). Then the lady I spoke with said the owners seem to have asked for the website to be removed the first day, then implanted robots in their HTML code to remove it from Archive.org.

*****

Just wondering: Does anyone know who the LEGAL OWNERS of the fight the smears site were? Was it the Democratic Party? Thanks.

[YellowRoseofTx]

Does anyone know who the LEGAL OWNERS of the fight the smears site were? Was it the Democratic Party?

I think the owner is Obama

[BIGLOOK]

It will be interesting to see what happens now that he has been served.

Hmmm...well, one thing we know is that he won't have his teleprompter in the courtroom.

Aloha Nut Cracker in Chief!