Carter's hearing the Keyes case. After giving Taitz a second chance to serve the defendant with the papers without screwing it up, they are now waiting for the government's response. The 60 day clock started running on July 13th or 14th. The Stefan Cook case is dead. The government revoked the orders, he lost his clearance, and he got fired. Now I think he's filed a wrongful termination case. I think Keyes doesn't have a justicable case or controversy. Remember, what happened is that he threw out service on private citizen Barry before he was installed as President; let her refile against the sitting President. But, now, what's your claim?
The Cook case itself is over. But the fundamental proposition advanced there is alive and well.
The military, even Private Scruffy at the bottom, operates on orders given on the authority of the Commander in Chief--this Chief has no pants. He can't give orders.
Further, we have a bunch of treaties and other operative legal constraints which are based on people acting on Command authority. And although I am not a military lawyer, I believe international law requires troops to actively refuse to act on illegal orders.
I suppose "illegal" can be two classes of illegal--the order to do something to someone that is illegal; versus an order (illegal in and of itself because the person giving it has no authority) to do an act otherwise legal.
But in a combat field setting, under circumstances where there is no declaration of War by Congress, it would seem to me that combat troops would have a real problem.
I don't think the military can live with this state of affairs.
Has Orly Taitz given anyone an answer to why she actually went to Tel Aviv after announcing that she was heading to London in order to see if she could "authenticate" the birth certificate?
David wrote: "I think Keyes doesn't have a justicable case or controversy.
As an attorney, I would agree with assessment. That is why I think most if not ALL of these cases will ever go anywhere. Courts are very hesitant to deal with issues that they consider "political questions" and given that the US Congress and Supreme Court has basically put their stamp of imprimatur on Obama's election by certifying the election results, I just don't see any court letting these cases proceed. (I think the facts bear me out, as the batting percentage has been 0% so far.)
So many posters in this thread have asked questions along the lines of: "Why aren't there other conservative lawyers out there who will help Orly or bring similar cases in their own states?" I think the answer is because most competent attorney's realize that it's not much more than a waste of time.
I would think by now that most on here should realize that Orly Taitz has shown virtually no competency in her various filings or arguments. Seriously, does someone need to be told that you have to put your bar # on your court filings or that your motions have to match their titles? She's been a member of the CA bar since 2002 (7 yrs) and those are the kind of mistakes that would get a 1st year lawyer fired by any decent law firm.
Just trying to be a realist here, please don't shoot the messenger.
I think Keyes doesn't have a justicable case or controversy. Remember, what happened is that he threw out service on private citizen Barry before he was installed as President; let her refile against the sitting President. But, now, what's your claim? I think that the government will no doubt move to dismiss due to lack of standing. And I think the judge will agree.
Further, we have a bunch of treaties and other operative legal constraints which are based on people acting on Command authority. And although I am not a military lawyer, I believe international law requires troops to actively refuse to act on illegal orders.
The Pentagon takes a dim view of soldiers who take it upon themselves to decide what orders are legal and what are not. Just ask Michael New.
I don't think the military can live with this state of affairs.
They won't have to.