Posted on 10/16/2009 6:02:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
I think the courts do. The court has jurisdiction to protect the plantiffs in the case. They do not have jurisdiction to bring charges against Obama or remove him from office, but they can order the plantiffs protected. And if in the process, a finding of fact results that Obama is not eligible, then the court can refer the matter to the Congress. Whether Congress will do their responsibility, is doubtful and remains to be seen. But if a Federal Court finds that Obama is not a natural born citizen, then Congress will likely have to at least examine it and face the voters wrath.
I just finished reading the whole transcript...
Here’s my thoughts:
1. Democrats are running out the clock. Judge Carter is a democrat. He has no intention of hearing this case.
JUDGE CARTER IS GOING TO PUNT!!!!!! He sounded like a scared jackrabbit the way he was pounding counsel for the plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs have a solid case, but fail to deal with the defendant’s case. In other words, Defendants are making the case that Carter cannot remove the sitting president. Plaintiffs are arguing that Carter can. That is simply a STUPID STRATEGY!!!
3. The answer to Carter’s question that he had to repeat SO Many Times is... or should have been....
Plaintiffs have standing to KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ELIGIBILITY!!! We are not asking this court to remove the president... only to force discovery to satisfy plaintiff’s demands and re-assert judicial CHECKS AND BALANCES!!!
4. (and I said this before some time ago in another thread...)
A LOT of people are going to have to die before this case is going to gain any traction.
5. Hey Taitz... here’s some free advice... TAKE SOME PRESSURE OFF THE LOWER COURTS!!! you might get somewhere...
i.e. Just demand ruling on eligibility!... and cede the point that removal would have to be dealt with by congress or the supreme court based on the ruling... which would undoubtedly go up the chain to the supreme court anyway.
>>> Wrong. Plaintiffs consistently argue BO is not the legitimate President because he was ineligible to serve when he was inaugurated.
Didn’t seem to me like Carter understood that point.
It was made several times, but he kept going back to how he was supposed to have jurisdiction over a political process.
Carter also refuted Taitz’s point that we are dealing with a corrupted and complicit congress.
They’re full of KRAP!
No Taitz is full of it.
There are two elements to "filing" -- submitting the papers to the court, via the electronic filing system for this circuit, and serving the defendants.
If you bothered to read the transcript, Judge Carter specifically addresses (Pages 49-53) the fact that Taitz waited to serve the papers in the same federal courthouse in Santa Ana until after Obama was sworn in. Once he was sworn in as a federal official, his defense would automatically be taken up by the US Attorneys. Being the inveterate liar that she is, Taitz even tried to argue that the court -- Judge Barnett's court -- didn't open soon enough that day for her to file the papers, which is nonsense, and he called her on it, although politely.
Secondly, instead of limiting herself to naming only Obama as the defendent, Taitz named government officials such as Secty of Defense Gates as co-defendents -- necessitating the involvement of the US Attorney's Office in their defense.
So, even if she had managed to serve Obama as a private citizen, before he was sworn in (and she didn't), she would have had the US Attorneys involved in the case, and all the screeching in the world can't change that.
Causality violation. ^__^
It would help if Taitz would bother to learn what "standing" or the "political-question doctrine" means.
She demonstrates repeatedly in this transcript that she doesn't have a clue.
In one really outrageous example, she repeatedly cites the case of Rodearmel v Clinton, and claims the plaintiffs have been granted standing in that case.
About 60 seconds of Googling will bring you to the docket for the case at Judicial Watch. It hasn't been decided yet. No standing has been granted as yet, and it's in the same limbo (per access on 10/17) as the Barnett v Obama case -- pending the court's decision on the defendant's motion to dismiss.
No lawyer with any brains cites a case that hasn't even been decided yet as an authority, and no lawyer with a shred of honesty could argue that the issue of standing has been decided in that case.
She literally makes stuff up as she goes along, and then screams outrage and persecution when she loses.
So where was this ‘impassioned plea’ of Orly’s that all her followers say caused the judge to not issue a ruling that very day? Looks like Kreep had the last word.
I read that twice now. There is nothing showing incompetence on Taitz’ or Kreep’s part in their arguments. They were as solid, or moreso than the DOJ’s
I agree. He does not seem remotely convinced of her arguments.
I agree. He does not seem remotely convinced of her arguments.
bfl
I think on standing he is more open to the argument. Now it would lose at trial and there is a much better argument that Orly could have made that would have at least not made her and the birthers look stupid but it is too late to do that. Not that it would have won, but it would have been a better argument.
Good lawyers plan their strategy out and she just failed to really investigate her options. It would have taken an attorney who knows how to play two or three levels ahead and she just ain’t it.
parsy, who thinks she is going to get trounced
If he's not eligible, he shouldn't be functions as CEO of the United States. (He shouldn't anyway, the President is CEO of the Government, not of the nation.
Moreover, what would happen if, for example, some judge in one district were to decide that the President is not qualified or did not meet the qualifications to be President, and another judge faced with the same issue in another district were to decide, yes, he is qualified.
What would we do then? We would have appeals.
There are going to be appeals anyway. One of the things the Supreme Court does is resolve disputes among the appeals courts.
In the meantime, the President’s ability, for example, to conduct foreign policy would be severely damaged.
Meaning he would not be giving away the farm quiet so quickly? Doesn't sound like a "Bad Thing" to me.
If he's not eligible, he shouldn't be functions as CEO of the United States. (He shouldn't anyway, the President is CEO of the Government, not of the nation.
Moreover, what would happen if, for example, some judge in one district were to decide that the President is not qualified or did not meet the qualifications to be President, and another judge faced with the same issue in another district were to decide, yes, he is qualified.
What would we do then? We would have appeals.
There are going to be appeals anyway. One of the things the Supreme Court does is resolve disputes among the appeals courts.
In the meantime, the President’s ability, for example, to conduct foreign policy would be severely damaged.
Meaning he would not be giving away the farm quiet so quickly? Doesn't sound like a "Bad Thing" to me.
_____________________________
JB Williams
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
Please visit Dr. Orly’s website before you are influenced by Obots.
Do what you can to help her.
.
Sir, your position as almost as funny as the US Attorneys position is. You, like they missed the point!
The US Attorneys were flim flamming...She was simply pointing out that their point was ludicrous!
In FACT there were MANY cases filed BEFORE Obama was president in which the judges SAID THE PLAINTIFF’S HAD NO STANDING!!!!
The US Attorneys PLAINLY stated in their argument that there was no standing NOW that he is president! The time for STANDING was before he became president...
Do you get it now???
Do you get it now???
Judge Carter (who is apparently soon to be demonized, per Orly), pointed out that Orly missed the boat by not serving Obama before he was sworn in as President. Read the transcript here -- Pages 49-54.
There's quite a bit more to proving standing than that, however. Judge Carter discusses the issue at length in the transcript, although Orly doesn't comprehend the concept.
Again, you miss the point.
The DOJ attorneys clearly argued and AGREED that before he was elected president the people had standing...
YET Taitz clearly pointed out that people DID file suit before the election and were told THEY DID NOT have standing.
You also missed the point Taitz was making...this is not a suit against the President of the United States...it is a PERSONAL suit against Barack Hussein Obama that has nothing to do with the DOJ who represents the United States.
Her other point was that if he’s not qualified, then he’s not president and he’s committed fraud.
If you read the transcript as I did, you’d see that Judge Carter was not swayed a lot by either party. He knows the DOJ is flim flamming him.
The ball is still clearly in Carter’s court and since this is new territory it will be up to him whether to blaze the trail for the people, or if he will be a sap for the DOJ/Obama flim flam.
I understand your point all too well but what other recourse is there when the legislature won’t look into it and a lot of us suspect that some of them are involved in the deception? All he needs to do is show us one legitimate piece of paper.
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.