Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(wow--Judge Carter) A very good day today for Orly Taitz
http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=2652 ^

Posted on 09/29/2009 7:39:20 AM PDT by cycle of discernment

29 Sep 2009 A very good day today for Orly Taitz

I think all those prayers help. Today I had two of my motions granted.

1. Judge Carter had granted my motion for surreply. I can provide 10 more pages of argument and all the necessary attachments by October 1st.

2. Judge Land in GA granted my motion to withdraw as counsel. the reason, i had to do it, since Cpt Connie Rhodes was under tremendous pressure, intimidation by the military and department of defense and she stated that she didn’t want to proceed under this pressure. Now I don’t have my hands tied behind my back, I can provide more info, now I can do more on my own behalf.

Judge Carter has spoken

**GUEST Comment Posted: 29 Sep 2009 06:02

Post subject: Apparently Judge David O. Carter has spoken:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently Judge David O. Carter has spoken:

Quote: MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUR-REPLY [75]: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and will give Plaintiffs leave of court to file a surreply not to exceed ten (10) pages to be filed by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009. Plaintiffs’ courtesy copy of the sur-reply shall be delivered to the Court’s dropbox on the ninth floor of the Santa Ana courthouse by no later than noon on October 2, 2009. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla)

This simply means that he is going to hear this case and order discovery immediately.

Apparently Mr. Obama thought as the Executive of the US he could issue absurd orders as if he has the same authority as a Federal Judge and seal documents which should have been made public before his nomination as the Democratic candidate.

If Judge Carter does in fact denies all the Defendant's motions and Orders immediate discovery and a trial on the merits many people in high places in the US Government will begin to get very nervous. We are referring to Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (born March 26, 1940) which is the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and also a member of the Democratic Party. She signed all the documents that acknowledge that Barack Hussein Obama II was qualified and eligible to occupy the post of the President of the United States.

Will she be the first to resign or be impeached if it turns out that Mr. Obama was in fact not eligible to occupy that post?

Orly Taitz has a couple more days available to her to present more evidence and allegations why this case must go to trial and the most important is simply that the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches and is the last possibility for the American People to be granted judicial review and due process as guaranteed by the US Constitution and to make the Separation and Balance of Powers reality.

An Executive Order will never be above a Court Order if that Executive Order is illegal and has been signed by someone that is not eligible to occupy the post of the President of the Federal Government of the United States which will be determined by a Trial by Jury on the merits.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; imom; obroma; ojoker; sourcetitlenoturl; truthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: SeaHawkFan

The arguments were pretty arrogant slapping this Marine judge’s face, saying: “Hey you little snake judge, who do you think you are, get out of OUR business”???


41 posted on 09/30/2009 6:36:52 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
"I haven’t followed these cases at all, but this makes her sound like a complete flake."

She is. And she misrepresents what people say and the meaning of court orders. I'm not at all sure if it is because she doesn't understand these things herself, or because she is simply that dishonest.

42 posted on 09/30/2009 7:11:23 AM PDT by JustaDumbBlonde (Southern by choice ... American by the grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

And yet she’s a hero to some here.


43 posted on 09/30/2009 7:28:29 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan; Non-Sequitur
"I is not a precedent, either."

Incorrect. It's persuasive precedent sometimes called persuasive authority by attorneys, not binding precedent. If this had been a 9th Circuit, or Supreme Court decision, then it would have been binding precedent.

44 posted on 09/30/2009 10:37:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Just try to tell a US District Court judge that another judge’s ruling is a precedent if that circuit court has not affirmed the same decision based on the same reasoning.


45 posted on 09/30/2009 10:51:50 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson