Replies

"Then there is no system of justice for the citizens of this country."

I am open minded on this issue, leaning towards 'the birthers do have a case.' However it is quite surprising to me, a non legal person, how every case is dismissed out of hand on a legal technicality. No ruling is ever made on the merits.

The 180 degree about face by this judge just confirms my suspicion that the fix is in and this contention is doomed to fail. Every branch of government has been compromised, and the legal branch must have a gun to its head:

Never a ruling
Never an opinion
Never Discovery

Every case cut off at the pass. But rest easy, we are a Nation of Laws. /sarc

“The 180 degree about face by this judge just confirms my suspicion that the fix is in and this contention is doomed to fail.”

I really do hope you’re wrong, but that’s what my gut tells me. Carter could have ruled on standing a month ago. This whole thing is sinister. But I take heart from my tagline.

"The 180 degree about face by this judge..."

He didn't do an about face. The birthers had been spinning his ordinary neutral acts as supportive. Yesterday they got a hint he may not agree with them.

The 180 degree about face by this judge just confirms my suspicion that the fix is in and this contention is doomed to fail.

There has been no 180 degree turn. What there has been is misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what Judge Carter said at the July hearing, and in orders and hearings thereafter.

Orly says: "At three different occasions at 10:40, 11:01 and 11:07 of the hearing judge Carter has assured me that if this deal is made, if I serve the US attorneys office, the case will be heard on the merits expeditiously and will not be dismissed on technicality." Well, first, if you read the transcript (as she invites you to do), you'll see that there was no discussion of any "deal." Judge Carter was simply applying the law to her case. He told her that he could dismiss, and let her go up on appeal, but that would cause a substantial delay in getting to the merits of her case. Or, she could properly serve under the rules, and get the case going forward immediately.

Second, he never said that the case would not be dismissed on a technicality. What he said was 10:10 9 The law abhors closed courtroom doors. And the
10:10 10 process and technicality of how counsel get here can be
10:10 11 exacerbating.In other words, he was talking about the technicalities of proper service - how parties get IN the door, not how claims are addressed once the parties are in the door. (Now, ORLY referred to standing as a technicality in the July 13 hearing. But the Judge never did. Reread the transcript. He didn't. Every time he used the term technicality or technicalities, he was discussing the service process.)

But, most important is this. As noted above, on July 13, Judge Carter told Orly that he could dismiss, and let her go up on appeal on her claim that she had provided proper service, which would result in a substantial delay in getting to the merits of her case -- or she could properly serve under the rules, and get the (merits of the) case going forward immediately. In discussing new service v. appeal, he used the term "merits" at least eight times.

Orly's incorrect interpretation of this was that if she properly served the defendants, Judge Carter would ignore all jurisdictional and other related issues that she considers mere technicalities and hear her actual claims. And so, she -- and many here -- interpreted his every statement he made thereafter through that prism. And, because it was in "incorrect" prism, all of the assumptions based on that prism were equally flawed.

Because, that is simply not what he said.

He said that she could appeal whether the complaint was properly served, or she could properly serve, under the Rules so that he could actually get TO the complaint. In other words, getting to the "merits" meant getting TO the complaint. But, until she'd properly SERVED the complaint, he couldn't even consider what was IN the complaint. He never said - nor would any judge - that he would not consider the basic jurisdictional issues that every court has to consider. And he never once called these considerations "technicalities."

As for Judge Carter's various comments shown in the official transcripts, about how the uncertainty is bad for the Country, or how it's important to resolve the question of legitimacy, or how Obama is either legitimate or not and we need to get to the merits, etc. .... consider going back and reading the transcripts again.

What I think you will find is that when he did that, he was doing it in the context of responding to her arguments (or the DOJ's arguments). So, for example, he made one or two of these comments in the context of rejecting Taitz's request to have Drake & Robinson dismissed. He said, essentially, you say that this case is so important and that uncertainty must be resolved, yet your proposed actions would only delay the case. With respect to the DOJ, he made one of the comments in the context of telling them that they need to accept proper service on Obama's behalf. There, he essentially said, it's bad for the government to have this pending case, so accept service already and get it over with. If you read the various similar statements he made in the context in which he made them, you will see, I think, that this is so.

In short, the apparently disappointment in how yesterday's hearing went was caused not by any change whatsoever in Judge Carter, but by the fact that lawyers -- who should know better have mislead many people as to what Judge Carter said, and/or what he meant (in context of understanding simple, basic legal principles) by what he previously said.

"However it is quite surprising to me, a non legal person, how every case is dismissed out of hand on a legal technicality."

Not a single case has been dismissed "on a technicality". They have, so far, all been dismissed as a matter of law. Justiciability and standing are paramount matters of law in American jurisprudence. They aren't - in any way - technical elements of a particular case.

A technicality might be that the margins on your pleadings are incorrect, or are unsigned, or your service of process is unsatisfactory or incomplete. Actually, the judge in this case - Carter - has given Orly tremendous deference with respect to her technical errors - errors that would have bounced this case long ago if she had been appearing in front of other judges perhaps.

"Never a ruling
Never an opinion
Never Discovery

There have been a number rulings and those rulings have certainly included opinions and decisions. There hasn't been any discovery because not a single judge has ruled that any of these cases reach a level that would justify discovery. It's as simple as that.