Posted on 09/08/2009 2:15:45 PM PDT by pissant
Would having numerous social security numbers aid someone in making campaign contributions to self or other?
Could someone deposit funds in banks using the designee social security numbers under which the accounts would be available, then someone else later withdraw these funds using that designated social security number?
Are social security numbers a data point for passport apps? For wire transfers of funds?
Then I will leave my fate in Jim Robinson's hands. Better his than someone like you.
anyone figure out how a man with a 19 year old FBI investigation with 600 pages ends up having a son that worked in the Defense Intelligence Agency???
That being said, he definitely gave Orly a dressing down in the courtroom yesterday. He didn't pull any punches doing it, either.
Those of us (like myself) who haven't followed the bickering in depth would have no clue about that information. That's despicable, and I would NEVER support that cept for maybe a thread created by a troll where the viking kitties were playing. I hope I've not offended anyone by suggesting people stop...while it is distracting, following it on this thread was informative because is provided some good summary of history as well as new information. With that said, I've mostly been a lurker, because I didn't have time to do all the researching that you guys have done. Support the efforts 100%. (Side note: When alan keyes jumped in, I was thrilled)
No, she filed it so she can handle it.
At least she has carried the ball at her own expense - in many ways - to where it now has a chance of getting the Defense to have to show some documents.
She has a huge hurdle to overcome on October 5th before she can hope to see any documents.
The blocking of discovery motion as Sibre Fan crows about as a negative, has not been granted. Obamabots are trying their best to derail anything they can.
Well don't get your hopes up too high. Any discovery to be done prior to October 5th will be done under Rule 26(a) which limits the type of information either side has to provide the other. There will be no subpoenas for Obama documents until after the motion to dismiss is dealt with.
I wonder if Kreep is as straightforward as he claims and not runing interference.
I don't know the man, but have no reason to believe that he intends to do anything other than represent his clients to the best of his ability.
You might both ant to hold back on MOnday morning quarterbacking and rooting for the opposing team.
I'm entitled to my opinions, and FR is an open forum.
If the DOJ is appearing, they absolutely SHOULD be open about it. They need to file an appearance and they need to include their name, etc. on the signature block of any papers that they are signing. However, I just checked very single page of the Appellee Brief in the Hollister appeal and I cannot find R. Craig Lawrence’s name anywhere. I must be working from an incomplete copy.
I repeat - if they are appearing and signing their name, then the signature should be in print that is visible, and their appearance should be open. On that, we agree 100%.
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/pledge
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/pledge
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/pledge
Use it.... USER~ and abuser
What makes you think I haven't?
Yep
Btw, how come those weather underground people didn’t go to jail..except for a couple that got pardoned by Clinton.
The full text of Judge Carter's remarks to Orly Taitz in yesterday's proceedings were posted on a blog where several people were capturing the live activity inside the courtroom.
Someone posted a link to that blog on one of the three threads running last night. That's where I read all of his remarks. I don't know if that link was on this thread, or one of the others.
I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find it, but a couple of these threads ran into the hundreds of posts overnight. It might be tough to find.
Just a hunch
Well there's nothing I can do to convince you. As you well know you have to choose to have you name listed among the contributors.
I hope you do, everyone should. I just wonder who pays it for you. Are our tax dollars paying it. The DNC? Who?
The plaintiff would not win by default, but the effect would be the same. It would be more akin to a summary judgment based on discovery violations.
If that were to happen, Obama would have forfeited his opportunity to prove his right to the office of President and would not be allowed to offer evidence of his eligibility in an appeal. Whatever evidence he wants to present must be presented to the trial court.
I had not previously looked at the appellee’s brief and just have and do not see the signature. But it was on the statements of issues presented and other preliminary filings filed by the appelees, which I had looked at previously. Did your pals slip up?
I'm hardly clueless. Yeah, on Friday as I recall they submitted their motion to dismiss.
The judge could have granted it on Tuesday but he didn't, in fact, he hasn't even read it as of yesterday.
The judge obviously wasn't going to dismiss this case. What he wants from Obama is to respond to the charges that he's not a natural born citizen. The judge is giving Obama time to respond, the sooner the better, and that he is serious about this case so he better be.
You: The fact is that other than the motion to dismiss, the defense had not filed any motions, only an order noting that the plaintiff had failed to effect service of process but saying that they would accept service on September 8th. I assume somewhere in that circus yesterday that was done.
The silly dilly-dallying by Obama lawyers have now admitted to Judge Carter that they have accepted the service. The "circus" was mostly about the cheap delaying tactics by Obama's silly lawyers which didn't work.
Since you soooooooo ignored what Judge Carter's profound words here they are again:
Carter, “If President Obama fits the qualifications under the rules of the court, the longer the delay the more credibility it lends to the complaint,” he said. “If President Obama does not meet the court’s requirements, the delay also causes a problem.”
And
During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion.
The obvious conclusion from Judge Carter's statements are the onus or burden of proof, is on Obama to convince the judge why he should dismiss this case and not grant discovery to the plaintiff. Spin your spin 180 degrees.
You: No, I read transcripts. And we'll see sometime on or shortly after October 5th whether there will be a trial or not.
Apparently, you missed Judge Carter's statements posted in bold above. Your turn to obfuscate and ignore the obvious.
Why would he grant it without giving the other side a chance to respond? Are you sure you aren't clueless?
The judge obviously wasn't going to dismiss this case.
Not on Tuesday, no.
What he wants from Obama is to respond to the charges that he's not a natural born citizen. The judge is giving Obama time to respond, the sooner the better, and that he is serious about this case so he better be.
Respond to what? His own motion to dismiss?
The silly dilly-dallying by Obama lawyers have now admitted to Judge Carter that they have accepted the service. The "circus" was mostly about the cheap delaying tactics by Obama's silly lawyers which didn't work.
Because Taitz has been too inept to do it properly in the past 8 months.
During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion.
I'm betting that you haven't read the motion, either. Well, keep telling yourself that stuff and we'll see what happens in October.
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.