Check out article and #15.
[Thanks, PennsylvaniaMom.]
.
Posted on 11/01/2009 9:41:05 AM PST by Seizethecarp
We’re not sure it’s exactly newsworthy anymore when a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s election on the grounds that he wasn’t born in the U.S. gets dismissed. (Though rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.)
But an opinion issued on Thursday dismissing one of these suits (this one, like others, brought by Orange County lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz) caught our attention.
The opinion issued on Thursday, by Santa Ana, Calif., federal judge David O. Carter (a Clinton appointee), delved deeply into standing problems he felt many plaintiffs in the suit suffered.
But in the suit dismissed on Thursday, Carter ruled that a group of plaintiffs could have standing: namely Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 election. Therefore, they may have been, theoretically speaking, harmed by an alleged fraud perpetrated by Obama in regard to his birthplace.
In regard to this group, Carter move on to another issue: separation of powers, finding that it is not within the constitutional power of the federal courts to “overthrow a sitting president.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Judge Carter's statement that quo warranto could be brought against Obama in the DC Circuit is not mentioned.
The many comments to this piece are interesting, too.
I am not a birther, but I find this angle interesting.
Liberals continually file lawsuits -— give them a taste of their own medicine.
Here is an interesting summation of the case from “Jack” in the comments, and a comment that appears to be from Orly herself:
4:30 pm October 30, 2009
Jack wrote:
.JUDGE CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly’s Candidate fraud case as well — all this on a red herring that Orly’s case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly’s actual case. Pretty nifty!!!
..
5:34 pm October 30, 2009
Dr Orly Taitz ESq wrote:
.Dear Mr. Jones
I am aware that you are not a fan of mine, but there are a number of Constitutional issues that I raised in this action, that were omitted in the opinion or misinterpreted. I hope you will show journalistic integrity more so then Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow and would give me an opportunity to present those issues to the readers of WSJ. You can reach me at 949-683-5411
Sincerely
Orly Taitz
.
The Law Suit needs to be Refocused! The Court should be requested to Find if in Fact OBOZO HUSSEIN BIN LADIN legitimately satisfies the Constitution’s Requirement that The Candidate and hence The PRESIDENT is a “NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN?” If the Said Individual is NOT Eligible, then So Be IT! and Let the Powers to Be Remedy The Situation... That would appear to be CONGRESS which is entrusted with the Powers to IMPEACH and Remove a Sitting PRESIDENT, Legitimate, Alleged or Otherwise!
A comment appears to be from Orly’s plaintiff Barnett:
7:28 pm October 30, 2009
P. Barnett wrote:
.I looked for many attorneys to represent us pro bono in Barnett v. Obama… Taitz is one of only a handful of attorneys in the country that puts love of the Constitution and our country above love of money.
So screw off all of you lazy liberal scum bag attorneys that only care about themselves.
AND THERE IS TONS OF FRAUD PROOF ON OBAMA (look at the docket through the PACER system), BUT THE DOJ IS RUN BY ERIC HOLDER - OBAMA’S LACKY. FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT COURT CASES, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT CARTER DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE FRAUD EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE DISMISSED the case for OTHER ISSUES.
Carter’s argument for dismissal is not keeping with the job of the judiciary branch of our form of government. The judiciary is required to hear cases brought to them on the merits according to Marshall.
Evidence Obama has produced to prove he is a natural born citizen - a fraudulent Hawaii COLB - see the PACER docket.
Signed, Disabled Veteran CPT Pamela Barnett
Is this poster referring to the after-the-fact ceremony that used the correct language? If so, was it intentional??
< reaching for the tin foil to cover my skull from the mind reading rays...>
Lucy, a Sunday afternoon ping.
This article is fascinating as it looks at it from another angle...and...(surprisingly) on the Wall Street Journal blog.
BTTT
Well, there's that, and all the twitter evidence. LOL!
placemarker
I’m reading the comments from the article you posted and it is no longer a question whether Obama has people on the payroll to troll the eligibility issue all over the web. They are scared sh!tless.
By the time even a little truth comes out, it’s gonna make Clinton’s impeachment look like small potatoes.
Yes, it is an interesting wrinkle that Orly’s suit was filed after Obama’s first botched swearing-in but before the private re-do the day after and Judge Carter seemed to rely entirely on the botched one without comment on the correcting one and any implictions of that.
It would seem that the 9th Circuit could reverse Judge Carter on this point, if it made a difference.
A remaining complication either way is that the DOJ was not conclusively served until August! This might make the botched inauguration moot.
This is already on the books in (of all places) Hawaii. Nancy Pelosi certified Obama as being eligible in Hawaii ONLY. In the other states, she certified Obama as the winner of the democrat party nomination, but excluded the point about eligibility.
Seems to me that the state position in charge of elections in each state (usually the secretary of state) should be personally responsible for verifying eligibility.
Nevertheless, the concern is what to do about the present situation.
This suit was not dismissed “with prejudice”. I believe that means Kreep and Taitz (hopefully just Kreep at this point) are not barred from bringing the suit back to Carter's court with the defects that Judge Carter identified corrected (dumping the non-political plaintiffs and all defendants except Obama, and not asking for removal of Obama but asking only monetary damages).
The WSJ Blogger Jones read Carter's at times confusing musings in dicta to mean that the political plaintiffs actually could have standing that Carter was willing to recognize if a remedy was available to the judge. The de facto removal of Obama requested by Kreep and Taitz was not seen as an available remedy, but a monetary judgment just might be!
Judge Carter seems to have actually invited a new lawsuit by the political plaintiffs!
How often have the anti-birthers and other scoffers declared that Taitz and Kreep would fail “just like all the others” because “none” of the plaintiffs had standing? Yet the WSJ legal blogger Jones says the anti-birthers and others are wrong. Judge Carter found that the political candidates could have standing if the case was timely filed and a remedy were available, according to Jones.
Finding standing for the political plaintiffs is huge!!!
This seems to have been the main sticking point in Judge Carter's opinion.
- There will be no discovery, because Keyes lacked standing
- Keyes lacked standing because THIS court lacked jurisdiction (NOT because ther was no injury)
- This court lacked jurisdiction because the case was filed after the swearing in ceremony.
but...
- the swearing in was repeated...the only reason to repeat it was because the first one was invalid (a point that could easily be made in court)...
Check out article and #15.
[Thanks, PennsylvaniaMom.]
.
rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.
Per Canedawg:
“And why is that?”
Maybe Jones just wants to reassure us that the White House War on Fox (WSJ is Murdock/FOX) will not intimidate the WSJ legal blog? As you point out, Jones doesn't explain why WSJ/FOX aren't taking the lead on investigating the vetting of Obama's NBC soil and blood eligibility, rather than just sitting around waiting for a case to "gain traction." Is it FCC threats that Beck is putting up on his chalkboard???
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.