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 ...
“This and other comments you’ve made are excellent.”
That is very nice of you to say. Thanks.
“Davis was a total perv! Group sex, kiddie sex, and other things I won’t mention, total pervert Communist.”
Oh boy! Given what we have just learned about ACORN advising on runing a prostitution ring for children smuggled in from a foreign nation, it looks like things have not changed much.
Also, comprehensive sex education where the left talks dirty to young children in order to inure them to porn, sexual abuse and self destruction is seen in a new light as well.
This is all breaking my heart to see this in power. But see it or not - it is always there in the Marxist activities hidden behind terms people don’t understand.
Well, we'll find out in October, won't we?
So where is the that court transcript you say that is available? Hmmmmm? You haven't placed any excerpts of the courts transcript for us to read? Why not?
Not really sure what you're talking about, but if your looking for transcripts from people who were at the hearing then there are dozens to choose from: Link
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.
I do know why? I'm curious at to your explanation. So by all means tell us why the judge didn't throw out the motion to dismiss yesterday? If it's such a dead issue and all?
"Not really sure what you're talking about, but if your looking for transcripts from people who were at the hearing then there are dozens to choose from: Link"
Oh yes you do non Sequitur. Your usual modus operandi that you always pull feigning ignorance. Anyone reading your previous post would see the discussion was about Tuesdays Judge Carter's court transcript you say is available. You know the one about 48 to 50 Plaintiffs v. Obama? Don't give me a Google search link to with 7330 search hits. So where is the transcript that are soooo available for us to read since you read it didn't you?
You don't really know? Remember you read the transcript...sure you do. Here's a clue, I posted his statements to you more than once. Think you can figure it out from there since you are so in the know.
you may thank me now, but please know that I am outcast on this matter ... the Rachel Maddow’s of the world call me “birther” & wingnut. But the birthers and wingnuts call me “Birther skeptic” & “birther denier”.
However, I do not have any substantial expertise on legal matters. So, in that sense, I am certainly in the right place.
(PS it will be easier to impeach Obama after the jidahists attack us again. Congressional hearings would be nice.)
Placemark.
And neither do you. Once challenged you couldn't cook up a plausible explanation.
Oh, I have one. A good one. Why don’t you try first and give me one.
BTW, where’s that transcript that you say is available? Still waiting.
Of course you do. Given enough time you can make up anything.
BTW, where’s that transcript that you say is available? Still waiting.
Take your pick. Link
Unlike what you just did.
There are several different transcripts from people who were there available on that link. What's the matter? Figuring out how Google works too hard for you? OK,
Here's One, and here's one, and here's one. Take your pick
The first link you posted is not an official court transcript. I’ve read the comments from there before.
The second link that you posted is not an official transcript But looks like a good read “As report to me by Tes via wavydavey.”
And the third link that you posted is not the official transcript from the court recorder. It’s from a website with the title “It’s September 8. The hearing in California District Court is over. Here are the results (thanks to Politijab.com)”
You don’t have an official transcript from the court, but read the transcript - right?
BTW, I’m still waiting for a link from you to the available official transcripts.
Sure. But first point out where I said I had a link to "official transcripts"? You put words in other people's mouth's almost as often as you insert your foot in your's.
Well, back to the obfuscation game that you like to play. The little grey area in subject matters that you play in so well. You knew damn well what I and FARS was speaking about. Anyone can check up stream on this thread to see for themselves. No, I placed my foot in your behind.
Everyone who is trying to decide what is going to happen on Oct 5 based on what the judge said in court would be better offer reading goat entrails or conducting an astrologer. The real key to all this is what Orly is going to say in her response.
(Actually, the real key is if Orly actually knows that she needs to file a response. According to an interview I saw with her, she seems to believe that a telephone campaign to the judge is the proper procedure. At this point, I would give 1:3 that she misses the filing deadline).
The standing issue is always going to be there. But I could see a sympathetic judge letting that one slide.
What I found interesting in the motion to dismiss is the argument that this is a political question that the court does not have jurisdiction over. I tend to lean more in that direction - that Congress or the electors should have addressed this a long time ago.
At the end of the day, I find it really really hard to imagine a district court judge wanting to get too far into this issue.
But, that’s why we have hearings.
I feel like I entered into some kind of school yard argument, but what is the question?
Why didn’t the judge rule on the motion to dismiss?
Answer: Because he can’t. Opposing counsel is allowed time to respond.
That’s how it works.
Party A files a motion.
Pary B responds.
Judge rules.
If he rule in favor of the motion, Orly would appeal (I assume she knows this)...the appeal would be granted...and the judge would be back in this same place in a few months.
You are waging an battle of wits with an unarmed man. You know that, don’t you?
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.