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 ...
How so? Phil Berg got it up the the judge's decision on the defense's motion to dismiss, and got dismissed. Other cases have gotten to the same point, and been dismissed. What Orly has done is not unique, or any further than other, more competent attorney's have gotten. If the defense motion to dismiss is denied and it actually gets into serious discovery then you can say that she alone has gotten further than anyone else. Until then she's still in the preliminaries.
Then do it.
Those are just the facts, pure and simple. So continue to play with other hand under the keyboard!!!
I'll have to watch it later. Damn these corporate firewalls anyway.
And you just keep telling yourself that, convincing yourself it's true.
Bill O'Railey would call you a Pinhead or worse. Keep on playing with your other hand under the table!!!
Is he a SHE???
I believe he spells it without an "a" and with two "l's". O'Reilly.
Keep on playing with your other hand under the table!!!
And you keep talking out that part of your anatomy where you head usually resides.
Transcripts available at what link?
Thanks for the ping!
Well, poor husband if any!!!
I don't know. It is so ABSURD that it almost defies a response. The exact OPPOSITE was happening. George Bush won the election despite the democrats cheating. AND anyone with a brain could see that dems wanted to recount votes in only predominantly democrat districts until they won. The democrats were just mad that after all their cheating they STILL LOST the election.
TO DO LIST FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY ACTIVISTS
- lobby state legislators in 20 Republican states to start holding hearings on presidential ballot access and eligibility
- contact the Republican Attorney General in various Red states to have them start an investigation of possible illegal activity related to Presidential ballot access in 2008.
THUS FAR, status is ZERO on the above. When the state of Virginia or Indiana, for example, starts a lawsuit vs. Obama ... their suit will be dismissed? Possibly
Questions to think about:
How many GOP Secretaries of State or Election Boards refused to list Obama on the 2008? What would have happened in response? Would Obama have sued? And he would have been the plaintiff, instead of the defendant, right? Then having the case dismissed would not have been an obstacle, yes? How many states figured out a way to make Obama the plaintiff? NONE.
If the plaintiffs in the Taitz case are attempting to invalidate the election and/or remove Obama ... can we imagine that judges will think that a private citizen does not have standing to do such a thing? And courts do not have such authority?
In the Tilden-Hayes election, did any private citizen have standing to sue to challenge the results? Did the matter ever get reviewed by the SCOTUS? NO.
In Gore vs. Bush, 2000, did the SCOTUS ever declare who the winner was? NO.
http://www.brown.edu/Students/Critical_Review/2003.2004.2/PS0116_1BEI.html
the professor retired, so y’all will have to do self-study.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/jacob.htm
Thanks for the ping!
You’re convinced you are correct, they were convinced they were correct.
You’re convinced there is fraud, they were convinced there was fraud.
No court agrees with you, no court agreed with them.
You’re demanding the law then be disregarded so you can have what you want. So did they.
You’re predicting violence if things are not how you demand they should be. So did they.
It comes down to the fact that you’re throwing a tantrum because things are not as you want them to be. And you are demanding the law be cast aside so you can have what you want. Followed by alluding to violence if you don’t get your way.
FARS asked you about where you can go and read the transcript and you have not answered him, so where is it?
If your quote is accurate and the judge said such motions seldom if ever are granted then why didn't he do that?
Don't you know? You read the court transcripts - right? Why don't you know miss clueless since you read the judge's statement that I posted to you above? He's pretty clear to me.
Instead you post from total ignorance, which is no doubt the state you feel most comfortable in. You really are clueless.
And you post nonsense. You are your name a total non sequitur and an ass.
Agreed. If only one state passes a law requiring presidential candidates prove their Constitutional qualifications then this mess will never happen again.
- contact the Republican Attorney General in various Red states to have them start an investigation of possible illegal activity related to Presidential ballot access in 2008
Probably ineffective in proving Obama's qualifications but a useful inquiry nevertheless.
How many GOP Secretaries of State or Election Boards refused to list Obama on the 2008? What would have happened in response?
I believe in all 50 states the presidential candiates of the major parties are placed on the ballot as a matter of course. That doesn't mean that can't change. At the end of the day each state governs who will be on their ballot even for federal elections. And there is no reason why they can't pass laws mandating proof of qualifications.
If the plaintiffs in the Taitz case are attempting to invalidate the election and/or remove Obama ... can we imagine that judges will think that a private citizen does not have standing to do such a thing? And courts do not have such authority?
Based on the defintion of standing, yes.
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.