Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birther or believer? (Judge rules in favor of trial challenging Obama's eligibility)
Beaufort Observer ^ | July 14, 2009 | Elizabeth Sauls

Posted on 07/14/2009 6:16:26 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american

Urban Dictionary defines a 'birther' as "A person who believes that Barack Obama has controversy and/or fraud surrounding his birth…"

At last count, at least 17 lawsuits had been filed in 17 different states questioning Barack Obama's status as an American citizen and his right to prop his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office.

One of those lawsuits will now get the chance to see the light of day.

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Alan Keyes in Keyes vs. Obama, announced late this evening that a judge has ruled in favor of Mr Keyes' request for a trial to discover whether or not Obama is an American citizen and, as such, entitled to be President of the United States of America.

Two weeks ago, World Net Daily posted a story outlining the difficulties Taitz encountered in attempting to serve the President with a subpoena. Taitz has filed multiple legal actions around the country alleging Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office.

Monday's hearing was on a request by Taitz for a default judgment, since she notified the president of the action weeks ago, and his lawyers failed to respond.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in favor of Taitz and granted the "motion for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal.". 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."

Bottom line? Whether one is a 'birther' or a 'believer,' this case will definitely be worth watching!


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: article2section1; barackobama; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; british; california; carter; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; coverup; davidocarter; eligibility; federalcourt; foreignstudent; forgery; hawaii; ineligible; judgecarter; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile; occidentalcollege; orly; orlytaitz; passport; passports; potus; taitz; usdistrictcourt; visa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: MHGinTN; 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.


101 posted on 07/14/2009 11:41:43 AM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

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


102 posted on 07/14/2009 11:46:02 AM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

103 posted on 07/14/2009 12:04:26 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: David

Bump

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


104 posted on 07/14/2009 12:34:05 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

It’s posted here on FR.

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


105 posted on 07/14/2009 12:58:49 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Got it !


106 posted on 07/14/2009 1:00:19 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

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


107 posted on 07/14/2009 1:02:36 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

Yes and their not admitting it! (lol)

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


108 posted on 07/14/2009 1:05:22 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

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.””


109 posted on 07/14/2009 1:16:42 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

I agree!

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


110 posted on 07/14/2009 1:19:23 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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


111 posted on 07/14/2009 1:19:37 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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


112 posted on 07/14/2009 1:20:27 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose

Very, very true!

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


113 posted on 07/14/2009 1:21:03 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

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


114 posted on 07/14/2009 1:42:13 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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.


115 posted on 07/14/2009 1:50:03 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; LucyT
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.

116 posted on 07/14/2009 1:53:51 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Not correct. You missed a few of my posts.


117 posted on 07/14/2009 2:01:48 PM PDT by Calpernia (DefendOurFreedoms.Org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx
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.

118 posted on 07/14/2009 2:07:53 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: john mirse
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

119 posted on 07/14/2009 2:54:13 PM PDT by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
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!
120 posted on 07/14/2009 7:24:09 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Government needs a Keelhauling now and then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson