Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Cicero
But I see no reason why Judge Carter should not have acted—other than tremendous pressure on him not to.

Indeed, he should have acted. Although he does not have the authority to oust a sitting "president", he could find that the occupier of the White House failed to prove his bono fides and demand that they be produced.

There are only a few moves at that point for Team 0bama (Obama, Fvck Ya!):

Put up or
Show their contempt of court or
Appeal

I don't think they can put up.

Contempt of court? Dunno, I think he has some immunity as long as he is in office.

An appeal would garner more daylight than the cockroaches can tolerate. Besides, it might actually get to the Supreme Court.

Carter should have 'kicked it upstairs', IMHO

51 posted on 01/01/2010 9:39:51 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 345 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: null and void
“Although he does not have the authority to oust a sitting “president”, he could find that the occupier of the White House failed to prove his bono fides and demand that they be produced.”

Judge Carter could not make this finding because what you have described is the definition of “quo warranto”. Under separation of powers, quo warranto is reserved to Congress which has delegated its quo warranto authority to only the DC Circuit, not to any other federal circuit court, such as Judge Carter's.

Taitz and Kreep even admitted this, but unrealistically (or disingenuously) thought they could persuade Carter that he should hear a quo warranto claim because in their view, the DC Circuit had shown bias. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think any federal judge would grant jurisdiction based on such a vague, unsubstantiated allegation by a plaintiff against a fellow sitting federal judge.

Now, with D’Onofrio’s impending quo warranto filing in the DC Circuit for the Chrysler dealers, we have potentially the right plaintifs in the right court with an available remedy, if SCOTUS will agree ultimately, that quo warranto applies to POTUS.>

55 posted on 01/01/2010 10:02:30 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: null and void

Exactly. All he had to do was require that Obama make his birth information available to the court. If Obama denies that the Kenyan birth certificate is legimate, then he can prove it by providing his Hawaiian birth records to the court.

That is not unreasonable. It would be required in almost any situation where the facts are in question. For example, Obama’s birth records were provided to the divorce court judge when his mother divorced his father, although they have since mysteriously disappeared from the divorce file.

Providing proof of birth is a routine matter.


56 posted on 01/01/2010 10:04:48 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson