Posted on 09/09/2009 9:31:14 AM PDT by outhousepatrol
Please contact Fox News, tell them to report on the September 8th hearing and pending January 26th Obama elgibility trial before Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court, Santa Ana, California.
Why is Fox silent? Afraid of race riots?
What is your take on this?
I think Fox (Glen, Hannity, Greta) doesn’t have to talk a lot about it. But, they should mention what happened, that a date was set and that so far to date Prez has spent 1.4 million to not reveal anything. That’s all, none of their opinions, nobody else on to discuss it with them, just the
facts. Maybe look directly in the camera afterwards and
raise an eyebrow, then move on to other stuff....
Although the sitting President can be sued, suits can only be against actions taken (or neglecting to take) in his private capacity. Presidents are immune from suits for things done in an Executive capacity. However, private lawsuits are usually postponed until after the President leaves office.
Obviously there's a wrinkle in that oinkment. "Waiter! There's a fly trapped in my oinkment. AND its WRINKLED!"
IF this goes to trial, any judgement in favor of the plaintiffs WILL be appealed on some technical issue, e.g., were the defendant(s) properly served? Any such appeal will ultimately go before the SCOTUS. Now, SCOTUS is a pragmatic body not a practical one, i.e., they don't care a hoot about details such as evidence; they're entirely focused on procedural issues (due process and what not). I bet Carter is watching his P's & Q's with an electron microscope; the ramifications could prove historic.
SCOTUS can't rule on the evidence, but can invalidate a decision based on Constitutional grounds. Its unfathomable to think what that may be. So the most plausible SCOTUS decision will be remand to answer a Constitutional issue, e.g., jurisdiction and/or standing. Quite frankly, that would be merely a delaying tactic, in that NOTHING would stop any Congressman from immediately filing a suit before SCOTUS and the standing issue would be moot.
Orly has been subjected to hostile, accusatory, hit-job interviews on both MSNBC and CNN and a silly interview by Colbert (silly on his part, but she got her point about having two US citizen parents to be NBC across). Fox, being particularly vulnerable to claims that it is a right-wing tool, has only indirectly covered Taitz by covering the coverage of the other networks.
The fact that for the first time in US history a federal court has agreed to hear a challenge to the eligibility of a US president is earthshaking. This means that for the first time a federal judge has found (or has indicted that he is extremely likely to confirm) that a plaintiff has standing, there is a legitimate controversy over which his court has jurisdiction and he believes that his court can fashion a remedy!!!
Obama’s “big” healthcare speech has totally sucked the air out of any other story including this one today, but by this weekend I expect it to break through as the ramifications of an order dismiss the dismissal pleading and to authorize legal discovery becomes impossible not to cover.
FOX simply must not go first. MSNBC will likely lead with a derisive mocking coverage following the Alinsky method of mocking the birthers and Orly with false framing painting Obama as a victim of a legal assault during war and a healthcare “crisis”. CNN will follow. It won't be long before the “rogue judge” is attacked. Then FOX will be able to cover the coverage of the others.
Oh, my, I didn’t see that. Looks like their MTD arguments rests on everything I mentioned: standing and jurisdiction (see A & C of DOJ argument). Part B is interesting.
But as I mentioned, B can be addressed by either a member of the Electoral College, or Congress filing suit. That would render B in my mind a moot point.
Yep everyone is wanting to get the cart ahead of the horse. This process will go by sequence and Oct. 5 will be a big determinant as to whether the case comes to trail in Jan.
FYI: Judge Carter is a 1998 CLINTON APPOINTEE! But, ENLISTED in the Marine Corps,served in Viet Nam, left service as a First Lieutenant.
He took an oath to defend the Constitution, it appears he will honor that oath. SEMPER FI!
What is the forecast here? Carter will rule on the MTD on October 5. If Carter rules as expected (ie denies the MTD), then what are the likely events?
* USDOJ appeals the MTD — would this delay the discovery and/or trial?
* Obama’s lawyers simply decline to comply with discovery concerning Hawaii vital records— can Carter issue subpoena directly to Hawaii state DoH?
* can USDOJ block such a subpoena? (note: the Presidential Records EO of 1/21/2009 does not seem to cover any state records, only federal NARA records)
* can Carter hold USDOJ lawyers in contempt of court for declining to comply with discovery for patently bogus (eg national security) reasons? can he hold defendant Obama in contempt of court for refusing to comply with discovery?
* how would the “race card” play out against Carter?
*** begin speculation on race card scenario ***
Regarding the last question, I imagine one answer might be a hypothetical mysterious courthouse fire and immediately subsequent unverifiable allegations by anonymous federal investigators that right wing racist terrorists are attempting to cause public confusion— presto, Orly, Carter, birth certificate issue is placed on “indefinite hold” for “national security” reasons while an “ongoing investigation” proceeds (for several years)...
Of course, the “ongoing investigation” could receive an interminable amount of mainstream media attention— as long as it is exclusively focused on right wing racist skinhead militia terrorists who “might be” involved in the mysterious courthouse fire...
I would imagine that a good corollary to “never let a crisis go unused” is “when a crisis does not work out as anticipated, invent a bigger countercrisis.”
I am definitely not advocating anything here, just trying to forecast based on current status.
However I if I were Carter and Orly I might be tempted to take a close look at which people are being appointed in positions of importance in the area of DHS...
*** end speculation on race card scenario ***
He took an oath to defend the Constitution, it appears he will honor that oath. SEMPER FI!
No doubt he will in his mind. But the question remains which of the two sides will his defense proclaim as the winner in this round. By the way I don’t think it matters whether he was appointed by Clinton or served in the Marine Corps as honorable people can found outside side of those two criteria.
There’s that intervening October hearing. Assuming the government’s motion to dismiss is denied, Judge Carter will set up a discovery schedule, and THAT will be news.
IIRC, what happened with Clinton/Jones was that the SCOTUS ruled in her favor that a sitting president was not immune from a civil suit. On that matter she was represented by private attorneys.
Starr was the Special Prosecutor following the criminal trail. It was Clinton’s lying under oath, once Jones got the right to depose him, that led down the road to impeachment.
I do not know why, in the current case, Obama is represented by US Attorneys v. private attorneys.
It's a safe bet. Every other eligibility case so far has been dismissed. This one will likely be no different.
It already has been dismissed, on an opinion so remarkably weak that it became a focus of ridicule (”the blogging and twittering judge.”) In fact the judge issued a Rule 11 sanction from which, upon a strong showing by the attorney entered in the case, he had to withdraw from. The weak opinions are now on appeal.
What, since you hold yourself out as learned in these matters, would be the actual issue or claim preclusion upon which that dismissal might be affirmed, “blogging and twittering on the Internet?”
Sorry, I was thinking about the Hollister case and another exchange. With regard to the case in the Santa Ana federal court, however, there would still have to be a legal reason for dismissal, even with regard to lack of Article III standing. What has happened in “every other case” would not be precedent unless the plaintiffs in them had similar claims to standing. And not all cases have been dismissed. Mario Appuzzo’s case for Charles Keurchner, for example, has not been dismissed. I think I was mistaken. I don’t think you have any actual knowledge of the law involved.
“I do not know why, in the current case, Obama is represented by US Attorneys v. private attorneys.”
Since he birth, and questions surrounding his citizenship, is a prePOTUS event, this citizen is wondering why my tax dollars are being used (in the form of DOJ attornies) to keep “citizen” Obama from having to be subject to discovery of documents (his Hawaiian birth records, etc.) related to the case.
IF ultimately this case moves on to discovery and documents should be found that significantly challenge his “natural born” status, then DOJ should only get involved IF they want to take the position that POTUS Obama is “natural born.” Right now they are obstructing not promoting “justice” by being involved.
I hope this case doesn’t just devolve into the Kenyan born sceanario. I would rather it be decided upon the FACT that his father was NOT a U.S. Citizen and IMO that keeps him from being natural born in the constitutional sense. This is an issue that needs to be resolved.....because it has long term implications. Will someday a child of illegal aliens that was born on U.S. soil be considered “natural born” and run for and be elected POTUS? I think the writers of the constitution put everything in there for a specific reason....every word means something in context of the rest of the document and the mindset of the time it was written.
This issue needs to be resolved. Even if it is not resolved to my satisfaction or how I think it should.
Say what?
I believe AV was referring to cases other than those handled by Taitz & Kreep. There are a variety of cases around the country that aren’t getting the publicity here that the Taitz cases are. Apparently you aren’t aware of those ... this seems to be largely about publicity rather than the law.
We have never before had a president hell bent on keeping his entire set of records secret. Never.
We have elected someone who's spiritual mentor condemned this country, and celebrated its losses on 9-11.
America is being led by a man who refuses to come clean about who he is.
In the opening statement of the motion, the DOJ lays the responsibility upon the Congress to “qualify” the Presidential candidate. This is absurd. Each state has their own election laws. In WV, Obama signed a sworn statement that he was constitutionally eligible to place his name upon our ballot just as he did in Arizona and perhaps other states. In Hawaii, the state required that the National and State Democrat party officials swear sworn statements as to his constitutional eligibility, which they did.
I wrote to my representatives before the electoral votes were certified. Senator Byrd, who is often described as a constitutional scholar, replied to me that it was up to the states to make sure that their elections were handled in accordance with the Constitution. It is unreasonable to expect a Federal Agency would be in charge of each state’s elections and ballots. Governors,legislators, and state office holders of each state also swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. So each state is responsible for assuring it’s elections are lawful. All Congress does is certify that the candidate got the required number of votes.
If Obama lied when he signed the forms to get on the ballot, he is criminally guilty of fraud. We citizens are required to produce birth certificates for a wide range of situations. We must “prove” our statements. My husband and I had to do that just last March to the retirement board. They made us bring certified copies of our birth certificates to a planning meeting even though we had signed statements prior.
This whold thing is stupid. No one should be allowed to be on our ballot for any office (or be allowed to vote) who does not submit a proper birth certificate to prove their citizenship to the Secretary of State or Local Clerk’s office who is handling the election process.
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.