Gee! Judge Carter didn't say that. In fact he has plainly stated that the facts of the case **will** be heard and that he will not entertain any motions for dismissal or delay.
You’re talking about two different things here. I’ve said all along that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate. And that’s true. No one has any law that requires this — so that you can go to that law and say “You have violated this law and a judge is going to order you to comply with that law” — when that person is a candidate.
That’s what is being talked about here...
But, right now, we’re not talking about a candidate and an election that is happening right now. This was the thing that *should have been in place* — *before* the election. The election is over; and Obama is the President right now. That law should have been there — but it was not there.
And thus, that’s why people have to be aware that there is *no law requiring a candidate to produce his birth certificate*....
The different matter, which can come up, is that a judge can order something for purposes of discovery or in connection with some part of a case (whether that will happen or not, I don’t know — but it hasn’t happened in over a year now...). And if something is brought out for discovery — this still does not change the fact that a candidate *is not required* by law to produce his birth certificate.
Since nothing has come of all the court cases in over a year of this — I don’t have any faith in the system producing a birth certificate.
So, at any rate, we can have another election, and another candidate, and another birth certificate issue (and even Obama once again, this next election) and *still* there will be *no law* requiring a candidate to produce his birth certificate (even if one is ordered here)...
Thus, the *problem* still remains, despite this case....