Posted on 09/08/2009 2:15:45 PM PDT by pissant
A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.
In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.
In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.
But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
His FReeper name was expatguy.
This is a very scary possibility to the elite. It's one degree of corruption for the liberals and rinos to argue perjury is alright for Clinton (under scottish law, ofcourse). It is much higher degree of corruption and much more risky to tell the American people the constitution does not matter for Obama.
In the media defense of Obama, some of them have started arguing about what constitutes a “natural born citizen” in the constitution. Ofcourse, it never means what it says now what the Founders intended it to mean per the Federalist papers. It is a “living constitution.”
Something I wanted to address to a person who has been here a long time...the moment if not before, Carter permits discovery, we have to immediately begin discussing and making plans as to what we want to happen to overcome the treason and deal with the left’s furious reaction.
The Left will blame white “birthers” for exposing the truth about him; they will pull out racism and incite race riots. We have to be ready to call them on that - even contact the FBI to report Van Jones, Waters and Sharptons and their counterparts in the media when start racially inciting the mobs - before they get too far. This is going to be wild.
Jim and/or other real leaders should also go and meet with the Congressional leaders of the Republican party with a plan of what we want so they are not just reacting like idiots falling in behind McCain (who is responsible for all this on the Republican side). We want a new election? We want Special Prosecutor investigations? We want legislation he signed annulled? Can the Democrats in line to take office do that in light of their treason/co-conspiracy in the fraud?
I believe that a serious jurist would want the case to be so completely solid that it would answer all similar and pending challenges of Constitutional eligibility.
That's incredible. I'll have to look that up.
that’s the one, thanks!
WHY
Clinton didn’t do squat against al quaida when he had the chance(s).
Like when he told George Stephanopolis about his "Muslim faith"?
I understand. I just think they are both equals, for different reasons.
I'm beginning to see that Orly Taitz is as you describe her - inept. I've seen quite a few postings regarding her mistakes and missteps with standard legal procedure, and that is worrisome, because she does have her heart in the right place, and is doing more to bring these bc cases before the courts than perhaps anyone else in the country.
Given the incredible historic importance of these cases, it's frightening to think that they would fail, simply because the one person with the guts and determination to bring them forward is too in-expert in the law to get the job done.
I think we should all be thankful for Judge Carter since a judge less interested in the truth could have easily tossed this case out earlier without pretty much telling Taitz how to do her job.
Indeed. Thank God that this judge sees the big picture, and understands that procedure is secondary to bringing out the truth of this historically important case.
Mispelled al qaeda...it’s late. ;-p
In my heart, I know you're right. The Taliban and the Islamofascists want Afganistan back and Obama's going to give it to them.
12,295 views, lots of interest in this.
Within minutes after launching the cruise missiles, sinkEmperor went on TV to tell U.S. what he had done. I told my then fiance that at very moment he had made a declarartion of war against the terrorists, a declaration that he had not prepared our military for nor the American people. I told her things would get hot around the world but that the CIC would piddle along making excuses and blustering yet not actually going to war against these bloodthirsty bastards of Islam because clinton lacked the one thing needed in war, guts and determination to defeat the enemy. Clinton was all about keeping his legacy ‘clean’ and deflecting the revelations of his sexual degeneracy (yes, sexual addiction is degeneracy). SinkEmperor tasked his cabinet and his hirees like Jamie Gorelick to keep us from having an escalation of the ‘conflict’ and keeping the war int he realm of a law enforcement issue. Clinton and his lying societal engineers are the real responsible partys for 911 happening, because our intel had the names and locations of the perps but did not allow agencies to share the details and thus allowed the perps to carry out their slaughter. Liberal law enforcement is reactive, after the fact of criminality action against bloody perps. It is not about deterrence, as I worte 2001 thru 2003 at FR. Bush was about action as deterrent. The societal engineers hated him for it because it revealed their fecklessness in contrast.
He was always Barry, even in school in Hawaii. He never used barack until after he left Occidental.
The money quote from your post, but damn if you haven't nailed these bastard Obama enablers right to the friggen wall.
I have thought what you so ably put in writing, many times while perusing these bc threads, and have had more than my share of firefights for daring to challenge these quislings about their motivations.
Thank you for so eloquently stating what so many of us have been thinking for many months now. Your whole post ought to be put up in bold on the front page of this website.
Kudos...
Word.
Not banned yet.
I think it’s a higher-up salaried one.__
_________________
It is, keep reporting, send the mods his posts. Check past posts, prove he posts almost exclusively on the BC threads and calls other Freepers names. Report often, his days are numbered.
That is what the written text of the speech states, but it proves nothing. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as written, IMO.
Here is the text from the white house website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
If a person was talking off the cuff, he may well use “other” and say, “where all the OTHER American kids went to school.” In a formally-structured, written speech such as this one, it seems not only to be superior grammar without “other, but it sounds better as well. Using the word “other” in that sentence in a written speech sounds much too casual.
There is a school. The Americans kids went to the school. Obama didn’t go to the school. Obama didn’t go to the school where the American kids went. You see how it “works”, has proper grammer and reads and speaks correctly? Adding “other” would be superfluous.
I think people are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. I know Obama is a radical communist Muslim and I have my doubts about his citizenship, but he did not make a slip in the sentence of that speech.
Now watch. Somebody will call me a troll...
Do you have that rap sheet? I didn’t find one on him, but found a long one on the woman that supposedly financed the trip. Dawnella Wilson I believe was her name.
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.