Posted on 10/07/2009 4:06:00 PM PDT by opentalk
"The implication of the court's order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial," wrote one supporter who contacted WND about the ruling. "And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED."
In my opinion it’s just court housekeeping and means nothing.
Great news, I hope/think!! BTTT!!!
Nothing? Why finalize dates for a trial that’s about to be “case dismissed”??
Have subpoenaed his school records?
bkmrk
"There was no ruling," he told WND. "I think for anybody to say there's a trial is way premature. The judge hasn't decided."
Too soon to tell, no final confirmation.
Well, if the DOJ says so.....
No. Not yet. Still waiting on judge’s decsion on motion to dismiss.
I think this is normal housekeeping. Orly said he judge made a statement in the hearing before this one which indicates she thought he would not dismiss.
We have to wait to see what the judge says. He sounded less open minded in the hearing yesterday. Hopefully he moves forward with the case.
It seems like I remember him saying the scheduling was confirmed at the same hearing he said he would later issue a ruling on the MTD. Just more housekeeping confirming what was said in court.
Shouldn’t this be in Breaking?
So does Gary Kreep.
Yep, we know that the ruling on the MTD hasn’t been announced. But this sure does look like a puzzle to me if he’s about to dismiss.
Why is the U S ATTORNEY defending in this case against a private citizen????
The Court has three months to decide the case from the date of submission. The fact that the court set a trial date is calendar housekeeping. It means nothing if the motion to dismiss is granted.
*******
Anyone have any idea how much it is costing U.S. taxpayers for U.S. attorneys to defend private citizen Obama in this court case? Thanks.
Another one about the same stuff. JFYI.
It is standard practice to set the roadmap for the trial and give tentative dates early on in any lawsuit. These roadmaps are what allow the parties to determine the deadlines for various motions (including motions to dismiss).
******
I don't like Obama, but I wonder if we are being a little naive by putting too much faith in this judge?
I hope I am wrong, but going by the many, many past dismissed court decisions concerning Obama's eligibility issue, I have the feeling that the judge may be playing with us, and at the last minute, he will find some legal excuse to dismiss this case.
Still, in my opinion, this case is good for anti-Obama voters for this reason: The legal arguments that Obama's U.S. attorneys---who are paid by U.S. taxpayers---are using in this California case to try to get the case dismissed may come back to haunt and backfire on them when Obama the 2012 presidential candidate has his eligibility challenged again and again in court during the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign.
For instance, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama's U.S. attorneys cannot argue that it is too late to challenge Obama's eligibility because the 2012 presidential elections are over.
That is, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama's U.S. attorneys cannot argue that the Nov. 2012 election was already over, when, of course, it had not yet occurred.
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.