The real goal of all these Obama eligibility lawsuits is not to throw President Obama out of office before the 2012 presidential elections, although it would be great if just one of these lawsuits unexpectedly caused President Obama to resign.
1. To me, the true goal is to make it so uncomfortable and exhausting for Obama---as he faces lawsuit after lawsuit day after day during the final 3 years of his presidency---that Obama will have no choice but to decline to run for office again in 2012.
2. Myself, I don't have any hope that this judge will help the anti-Obama people in this lawsuit, because I don't see the Los Angeles judge doing anything different than other judges have done before him on this Obama eligibility mess: He will probably find a legal reason for dismissing the lawsuit.
3. But the judge's expected decision in favor of Obama doesn't really matter, because our goal is to keep putting pressure on Obama over and over again about this eligibility issue during the next 3 years right up to the 2012 presidential primaries and further.
4. Guess what. When Obama runs for office in the 2011-2012 right up to the Democratic Convention in 2012, he will have to run just like any other candidate who runs for President of the United States, that is, he will not have special treatment just because he happens to be President of the United States.
5.He will no doubt face question after question about where he was born and about why he won't release his college records.
6. But this second time around will much different for the community organizer-state senator than the first time he ran for president in 2008.
7. That is, he won't get a free pass as to his eligibility status.
8. For instance, there is a good chance that Obama will have to face even more and more court challenges to his eligibility status during the campaign of 2012.
9. But this time during the 2011-2012 campaign, Obama could be so EXHAUSTED from facing today's lawsuits day after day, he might NOT have any stomach or energy left to face more eligibility lawsuits if he decides to run again.
10. And if I am not mistaken, it will be Obama the private citizen who will have to fight those many eligibility lawsuits that Obama will no doubt face if he decides to run in the 2011-2012 primaries.
Again, fighting such lawsuits could cost Obama million, although I bet Obama would receive financial help from his rich democratic party friends.
11. My point is this: I believe that the Los Angeles judge will find some legal reason why he will dismiss the Obama eligibility lawsuit like the other judges before him have done.
12. But it doesn't matter, because our real objective is to keep putting pressure on Obama day after day with new lawsuits during Obama's first term over the next 3 years so that Obama will not have the energy, the finances, nor the stomach to face even more eligibility lawsuits and questions about where he was born and about his college records.
13. If I were Obama, I would be a little frightened by the thought that I will have to fight numerous lawsuits over and over again during the 2012 presidential again that question my eligibility to be President of the United States.
14. And remember, the eligibility lawsuits of the 2012 presidential campaign will be much more sophisticated than the lawsuits of today, because the lawsuits of 2012 will have learned from the mistakes of the eligibility lawsuits that will be filed during Obama's presidency of 2009-2012.
15. Again, I expect the Los Angeles judge to quickly dismiss this lawsuit like other judges have dismissed Obama eligibility lawsuits in the past.
I don’t support lies on either side.
I also don’t support using the courts for anything but legal questions.
Fraud and legal loops holes can’t be fixed or addressed when garbage is being hurled aimlessly at the walls to churn the system.
Any one who has not done so might gain some benefit from reading my comment in response to doug at "Federal Judge to hear Obama Birth Certificate on the Merits!" Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:00:27 AM · 322 of 368
In reading the general Free Republic commentary, there are some things everyone needs to understand again. These are technical legal questions and there are specific rules governing legal proceedings in any court which must be complied with or you don't get your case heard on the merits.
It isn't magic; it isn't luck; usually the bias of the judge only kicks in when your lawyer has screwed up so badly that the judge knows you can't successfully appeal what he has done.
All lawyers are not the same; all lawyers don't have the same degree of experience and background to manage the same level of complexity in these kinds of cases nor to exercise the same level of detailed precise care in preparing and filing pleadings or getting cases served and filed properly.
All of the (Obama Citizenship) cases I have seen involve some element of the kind of technical imprecision that keeps these cases from being heard on the merits. To some degree, even the current cases which have a better level of access to factual material (because people involved in earlier cases have done a great deal of work) where counsel is learning from the mistakes of prior parties, still are defective.
And the docket doesn't always disclose what has happened in the technical sense. I don't have time to go looking for original court documents although I could probably get some of them. But as to the Keyes Santa Ana case, a couple of additional things have appeared to me that I did not point out in the earlier post.
This case was originally commenced as an action against Obama prior to his inauguration as President on the theory that he was a private citizen--you just get him served properly and you get him in court.
Whether he really did not understand that the case was pending or not, he had a reasonable position that he had not been properly served and thus that the case was not properly pending against him. And that is what Judge Carter originally ruled.
Again, a fairly simple screw up by counsel--shouldn't have happened; but, as the WND article pointed out, probably, the case wasn't properly served and once he gets in office as President, you can't sue him that way and get him into court on some reasonable schedule.
On the motion for rehearing, Judge Carter says, "OK, well you have this whine about not getting a hearing on the merits--maybe you serve the US Attorney and proceed on the merits on the theory that he improperly holds office".
Now you get to the entire series of technical problems involved in sueing the President of the United States while he is in office and I tend to doubt that you are likely to overcome the objections that will appear before his term is over.
Now I want to expound further on the other Thursday Case, Cook, which is apparently also Orly Taitz's case and I will do that separately addressed to Lucy and she can post it where she deems it appropriate to do so.
There is some merit to John Mirse's comment to which this is incidentally directed. But the real initial point is that if you had done a decent job of dealing with the technical legal, you might well have been successful. If you can't get your legal work done correctly, focus on the fact that this guy is not really the President may well have the result of limiting his ability to inact damaging legislation.
The extent of your post—some lENGTHY planning to express the points to the length of fifteen points, with separate groupings(!)—all rests upon a specious premise. You have tried to imply that all the parties suing this affirmative action figure liar are part of a cabal seeking to make his pres__ency impotent. Anyone following the many and varied cases sees your initial premise is false, thus we are left to concluded that your fifteen points are a carefully arranged defense of a specious premise ... very astroturfish, N00b.