... to #10,312.
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
What is AXJ? Thanks.
I binged it and got:
action4justice.com
Thanks. Strange web site.
Yes, strange, indeed. There is a scrolling headline there right now that says “Re: Obama will be out of office in 30 days”. I cannot click on it and get anything to come up.
There was a thread with that title this morning...haven’t gotten to it yet....
Is it known, for a fact, that it was indeed an “accident?” I don’t know either way. Could be a’la Patton.
http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewforum.php?f=14
For this specific topic, check here:
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. never admitted to having a son, was never notified of any divorce documents filed against him, and was killed in Kenya for political reasons.
________________
This isn’t true. He died in a car accident.
Don’t be so fast to dismiss this. I haven’t seen anything to disprove those three points. Are you SURE it was an accident? It was rumored at the time that it was no accident. He never responded to the notice for divorce. And recently there has been a lot of discussion lately that there is no evidence of Obama senior accepting Jr.
Thanks for all the links. I read them all.
Definitely bookmarking here
Today, Attorney Kreep files: "REVISED OPPOSITION to Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF "
In part...
"Attorney for Plaintiffs, Dr. Wiley S. Drake andMarkham Robinson
I. INTRODUCTION
This response to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery is limited to the issues affecting Plaintiff’s Markham Robinson and Dr.Wiley Drake. It is our understanding that [snip] will be addressing the issues affecting her clients in her response to this Ex Parte Application.
This action is brought by, among others, Plaintiffs Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFFS”). Dr. Wiley Drake was the Vice Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008Presidential Election on the California ballot. Markham Robinson was a pledged Presidential Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for the California ballot. [snip] is representing Plaintiff Dr. Alan Keyes,herein, who was the Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot.In order to properly address issues raised in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery, it is necessary to address the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal which lead to this Ex Parte Application, and which is referenced in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application.
II. STANDING
A. INJURY AND CAUSATION
Standing is proper when there is an injury in fact, caused by the Defendant,and redressable by the court. The Court in Hollander v. McCain held “a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's orparty's own chances of prevailing in the election.” ( Hollander v. McCain (2008)566 F.Supp.2d 63). Here, Dr. Wiley Drake was a candidate for Vice President of the United States running against Defendant Barack Obama in the 2008 election. As a Vice Presidential candidate, Dr. Drake has an interest in having a fair competition for that position. This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed ifthat disqualified contestant remains as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing field. Defendant Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Dr. Wiley Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States, and, thus, was not given a fair opportunity to obtain votes for Vice President of the United States..
Here also, Mr. Robinson was a Presidential Elector in the 2008 election. As an Elector, he had an interest in there being a fair competition between the candidate he pledged to vote for and the other candidates for the office of President of the United States. Mr. Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Mr.Robinson has been injured because the candidate he pledged to vote for did not have a fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States, thus preventing Mr. Robinson from casting a vote for the candidates he pledged to vote for as Elector.
As a result, PLAINTIFFS have suffered a concrete injury in fact.
B. REDRESSABLE BY THE COURT
Defendants allege, on page 9 of their Motion to Dismiss, that “the political question doctrine precludes redress to any Plaintiffs because such redress would improperly arrogate to this Court jurisdiction over political questions as to the fitness and qualifications of the President which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and the Senate.” Defendants further allege, on page 12 of their Motion to Dismiss, that “issues related to a candidate’s eligibility for the office of president rest, in the first instance, with the voters and with their Electoral College, the Constitutionally created body responsible for selecting the President of the United States.” This assertion is incorrect in a number of ways. First, a provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote ofthe people, as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution (hereinafter referred to as “U.S.Const.”), Article (hereinafter referred to as “Art.”) 5, requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all State legislatures in the United States (U.S. Const., Art. 2). Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as President a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the Constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible. Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power or the right to determine the eligibility of a candidate.
In addition, the Electoral College is not empowered with the authority to determine the eligibility of any candidate. In twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. The assertion of Defendants that the Electoral College has the authority to make any determination of a Presidential candidate’s qualifications is unpersuasive because, while the historical intent of the of the Electoral College was to make such determinations, the modern majority trend of the States is to limit the duties of the Electors to the ministerial role of casting a vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote of their respective States."
... to #10,312.
Obviously, that part is false because their are photos of Barack Sr. with Barack Jr. on a visit to Hawaii long after the divorce. Jr. was about ten years old at the time, IIRC.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr.... was never notified of any divorce documents filed against him...
We don't really know if that part is true or false. What we do know is that Stanley Ann filed a divorce case against Barack Sr. in Hawaii, and that the case was allowed to proceed by the Hawaii court without any reply whatsoever from Barack Sr. or any attorney representing him. From what I've seen, the Hawaii court probably ruled that Stanley Ann legally served the papers on Barack Sr., which did not necessarily mean that Barack Sr. was actually notified.
I agree with you that Barack Sr. (officially) died in a car accident. However, in a Third World regime, homicides have been known to be covered up as "car accidents." In fact, that has even happened on occasion in the US.
Obviously, that part is false because their are photos of Barack Sr. with Barack Jr. on a visit to Hawaii long after the divorce. Jr. was about ten years old at the time, IIRC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because he was in a photo with Jr. doesn't mean that he admitted/claimed Jr. was his son. Could have simply been nothing more than a photo together. We just don't know either way (from a photo only).
In the quote above, [snip] = Dr. Taitz.
Translation? It looks like Gary Kreep filed something here. I hope Orly focuses on Obama instead of fighting with Kreep. Can Orly and kreep present their respective cases in the same case?
I know Judge Carter told them to work it out.
Not “asked” Orly but Judge Carter told you.
I support her but if she starts fighting Kreep and then the Judge - she will blow her case up.
This may be a cultural norm in parts of Africa and parts of America too. He is my kid but not really. All very casual.
Kreep has what 2 plaintiffs and Orly has 48?
Orly should be the lead lawyer here.
If this goes to court, Kreep can present the case to the judge about discovery of only pertinent Obama documents - that’s his beef right?
And Orly argues the case on US Constitutional eligibility grounds.
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.