Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

WND ^ | 9/8/09 | staff

[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.

[BP2]

And the great thing is even if Orly can't move forward with this judge, the primer has been cracked as to how to move beyond any “lack of standing” issues that have plagued prior eligibility cases.

How so?

My intellectually-dishonest FRiend — I shall not be divulging that to an obvious obfuscator as yourself.

But as I've said elsewhere, the answer lies within “KEITH LANCE ET AL. v. MIKE COFFMAN”, “FRED HOLLANDER v. JOHN MCCAIN” and others.

Kudos to Orly, who seems to be listening. Kreep and others will keep things on track.

[Non-Sequitur]

My intellectually-dishonest FRiend — I shall not be divulging that to an obvious obfuscator as yourself.

You don't know either, huh?

But as I've said elsewhere, the answer lies within “KEITH LANCE ET AL. v. MIKE COFFMAN”, “FRED HOLLANDER v. JOHN MCCAIN” and others.

And what makes you think that the judge won't find that Orly's plaintiffs lack standing as well?

[afnamvet]

The fact that Carter was appointed by Clinton, means that he passed at least a modicum of liberal tests. He may also have some loyalty to the Clintons. Would you not agree?

No, I do not agree to speculation. It is your opinion, not mine.

Look, here is where I stand on this issue. Judge Carter is bending over backwards guiding Orly Taitz through procedural issues with her filings. See post # 632. He is telegraphing to all who can hear, read and understand that he wants to see this "question" dealt with.

I wish Orly well with her case but she needs serious help in understanding proper filings and local rules of the court.

I see no "red flags" with Judge Carter's handling of this case to date. On the contrary, he wants to see this issue resolved as well.

Cheers

[BP2]

You don't know either, huh?

[rbbeachkid]

But the only step we are really concerned about is discovery. Just get the information out in the open. I am mostly interested in the school records at the moment. Was he enrolled as a foreign student?

[mkjessup]

You sir are a potted plant.
Whatever.

Fixed your original statement in the interest of accuracy Faucetman, lol

[Non-Sequitur]

But yet you can’t explain your ‘cracked the lack of standing’ comment. I’d be interested in knowing how you stumbled into that conclusion when the judge hasn’t even ruled on the defense’s motion to dismiss on, among other grounds, lack of standing. Can you explain that part at least?

[LaybackLenny]

Look, if you read further than just the post you reference, you'll find that, thanks to FReeper afnamvet, I demurred on my statement. I did not know that the judge is a Marine. Should I have done my homework? Yes. But I'll restate what I said in another post. I have watched this Republic demeaned, and its institutions (including, very pointedly, the judiciary) corrupted beyond recognition. My cynicism is such that I believe, unless shown otherwise, anything or anyONE even slightly connected to BJ Klintoon is tainted. My immediate reaction when I see the Kenyan Pretender getting away with wholesale treason is "why's this time gonna be any different." I sincerely hope and pray this judge is the man you say he is. I guess we'll find out in January.

(And yes, I know it's hard for you to believe that cretins and scum-of-the-earth such as me pray and believe in the principles that this Republic is founded upon. Sorry to spoil your stereotype.)

[Non-Sequitur]

Fixed your original statement in the interest of accuracy Faucetman, lol

Whatever your intersts are I've noticed that accuracy isn't one of them.

[Sibre Fan]

“The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order, but there has yet to be a ruling on this, perhaps to the surprise and chagrin of Obama and the DNC.

Obama’s lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC.

They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”

---

Weird. Neither of the quoted phrases appear anywhere in the Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Protective Order filed by Obama/DNC in the Berg v. Obama case, both of which are available at Justia.com. I wonder what pleading they are talking about.

[mkjessup]

Fixed your original statement in the interest of accuracy Faucetman, lol
Whatever your intersts are I've noticed that accuracy isn't one of them.

Oh I don't know about that, I've been hitting the bullseye on your lying ass with pretty good accuracy.

And I know how to spell too.

[mkjessup]

Obama’s lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC.
They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”

And to that, I say to those lawyers and to the Dear Comrade:

TOO EFFIN BAD!

Release the records, ALL of 'em!

[Uncle Chip]

I believe that with this post two days ago you have met your quota of certifiable prefabrications on this forum. You should take the rest of the week off. Nope. Having too much fun.

Having too much fun prefabricating to take the rest of the week off, ehh??? By all means then, please continue with your prefabrications.

[mkjessup]

Lies, distortions and half-truths are that troll’s stock-in-trade.

[Uncle Chip]

Lies, distortions and half-truths are that troll’s stock-in-trade.

Yup!!!

[SeaHawkFan]

If Taitz demanded a jury trial, it demonstrates she is clueless about procedures. She does see the big picture and she and Kreep would make a great team if she would recognize he is strong where she is weak.

[BP2]

But yet you can’t explain your ‘cracked the lack of standing’ comment. I’d be interested in knowing how you stumbled into that conclusion when the judge hasn’t even ruled on the defense’s motion to dismiss on, among other grounds, lack of standing.

Can you explain that part at least?

It's not that I can't — it's that I won't

[hattend]

THe 9th Circus Court will nip this in the bud.

[mojitojoe]

Davis was a total perv! Group sex, kiddie sex, and other things I won’t mention, total pervert Communist.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What are other legal pros saying?

He set a date for a trial if he denies the motion to dismiss. So far, no eligibility case has survived such a motion.