Check out #47 and #48.
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 ...
Planned Fraud, which is still being carried on to the tune of 2 million dollars and growing. We will oust him at the ballot box if necessary, and this ammo WILL come in handy, especially if we have a certfied copy of the COLB. Thats all a court needs to do, order Obamas long form published, we won't need any other remedy.
And you know, if we do not de-elect Obama, what are the alternatives? The courts will have had their opportunity, and the people will enforce the constitution in their own way.
Its all good. Birthers are patriots. Wrong Siders? Well lets just say they are on the blue dress, wrong side of history.Poor confused little sheep, bleating their self importance into the darkening night.
Thanks for the ping, STAR.
Do we have any evidence that Obama ever stated, under oath, that he was a "natural-born" citizen? My recollection is that Obama never addressed the question directly - it was always done by surrogates. I would think that there must have been SOME form on which Obama stated, under penalty of perjury, he was eligible to be POTUS - but is there? Or have surrogates always "certified" him as eligible? To prove a tort fraud I would think you would need to provide concrete evidence that Obama in fact committed fraud.
“Do we have any evidence that Obama ever stated, under oath, that he was a “natural-born” citizen?”
See Arizona signed statement at this link:
That would make getting the documentation a mere matter of going to a local magistrate and getting a warrant for the records. The Hawaii department of Health is bound by Hawaii law to honor such a court order. Then The Messaih could be charged with a crime committed *before* he became de facto President.
Unfortuately the AG is the 'Rat successor to Janet Napalitono in that position. So that is not going to happen anytime before Hell Freezes Over.
Excellent Point
1. Re-file tort claim with Keyes or other political plaintiff asking only for narrow monetary remedy.
2. Quo Warranto in DC with qualified “interested party” which D’Onofrio and others appear to be preparing.
3. 9th Circuit or SCOTUS may reverse Carter on his ruling that once inaugurated even an ineligible usurper is not just de facto but also de jure president. The 9th or SCOTUS may not be willing to cede the power to rule on pre-election fraud of the judicial branch if they believe it belongs to them. 9th or SCOTUS may not agree that an ineligible fraudulent POTUS can only be removed by impeachment and may rule that an ineligible POTUS was never POTUS and can simply be replaced with VP under 25A.
4. 9th Circuit or SCOTUS may not agree with Judge Carter's page 22 footnote where he claims that Vattel, Jay and Bingham _alone_ aren't sufficient to overcome the history of congressional legislation defining citizenship and naturalization. Carter appears to be conflating the definition and rights of citizens (whether born or naturalized) with the constitutional requirement that POTUS candidates meet a totally separate and distinct requirement at birth of having two US citizen parents having nothing to do with otherwise equal rights of citizens. Ark clearly distinguishes 14A citizens from NBC and Minor affirms there is no doubt regarding two citizen parents.
5. 9th or SCOTUS may reject Judge Carter's attempt to pre-judge the veracity of HI birth records compared to Kenya birth records without allowing discovery to go forward. For Judge Carter to rule for the MTD, he had to find that “even if the allegation of the plaintiffs were true” they could not prevail. Carter unfairly disadvantaged plaintiffs IMHO by claiming that even if Lucas Smith's Kenya BC were validated it couldn't overcome a validated HI BC.
Carter presumes to know the outcome of the discovery that the plaintiffs are requesting. The 9th or SCOTUS could reverse Carter on this if they thought there was a remedy of removal of an ineligible usurper that didn't require impeachment because the usurper was never POTUS.
Here is Leo D’Onofrio’s comment on whether Obama committed fraud when he signed an NBC eligibility statement in AZ (Leo’s is “Ed.” for editor):
Follow the Constitution Says:
October 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“”Failure to be eligible is not a crime, but it is does give rise to removal of a sitting President.””
Yes, but committing FRAUD is a crime! He frauded the people knowing he was not eligible and the mere fact he spent over a million bucks to keep his records sealed, even before the election, shows his intent to fraud the people over his eligibility.
[ed. It was fraud to swear he was eligible in Arizona, but it was not fraud for him to believe he was eligible and to run. It’s possible that he honestly believes he was eligible, and it’s possible the Supreme Court will back him up. IT was not possible that he could swear he was eligible only that he believed himself to be eligible. So in Arizona, he appears guilty of perjury.
But he is not guilty of intent to defraud the nation in general by running unless he truly believed he was not eligible and I don’t think you can meet that standard unless he was born abroad. I do not believe he was born abroad. And I have not seen any reliable proof to establish that he was.]
Check out #47 and #48.
Mark Bennett, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii could easily resolve this issue by convening a Grand Jury to investigate the fraud/forgery allegations.
Bennett has the statuatory power to seek a subpoena for Obama’s vault copy, long form, original birth documents which could end all speculation on whether fraud or forgery was committed.
Bennett is probably like Dede Scozzafava and Arlen Sphincter, Rs who are RINO rats.
“Bennett is probably like Dede Scozzafava and Arlen Sphincter, Rs who are RINO rats.”
Agreed. Carter's decision shirks his responsibility as a federal judge, according to the plain language of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution and the construction of it set forth by Chief Justice John Marshall. "The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." If this isn't a "case arising under the Constitution," it would be hard to conceive of any that is.
"Standing" is a judge-created concept used to dismiss otherwise worthy cases in order to (1) frequently protect government officials from litigation challenging their alleged abuse of power against the citizenry and (2) reduce the judiciary's case load. Even at that, it would be hard to conceive of a military officer, having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, to lack standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of his/her purported commander in chief.
Thank you. I thought there must be, but I didn’t recall seeing it mentioned.
Thanks again.
The only branch of government with the power to remove a sitting President is the U.S.Congress.
Impeachment is reserved for legally elected officials.
The legislative branch realized usurpers occasionally made it into office and so created legislation for Quo Warranto, delegating their power to remove a President to the District Court in Wahington, D.C.
The correct avenue for removing a usurper President is via the District Court in Washington, D.C., as directed by this legislation created and passed by the Federal legislative branch.
As per Leo Donofrio:
“Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts - Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.”
“There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.”
“The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.”
“Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.”
“Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.”
The door may well be open, even if only a crack. I have not given up hope.
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.