And a fraudulent basis as well, since no "American birth records" have ever been presented.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/29/2009 6:34:02 PM PDT by STARWISE
A U.S. district court judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit involving Orly Taitz seeking to have President Obama removed from office because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
In his dismissal – which is, despite the legalese, a pretty entertaining read – Judge David O. Carter writes that removal of a sitting president for any reason "is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
*snip*
"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic," continues Carter. "Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."
Elsewhere in the document, Carter says that "[p]laintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved."
"Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya," he writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
DISMISSES CASE WHICH SOUGHT REMEDY FOR MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD IN 2008
by John Charlton
Excerpt:
(Oct. 29, 2009) — In a ruling that has stunned none but those who love this Nation, Judge David O. Carter has granted the Motion to Dismiss presented by the Department of Justice, in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.
The case involved the massive election fraud which occurred in 2008 General Election, when Barack Hussein Obama, though not an eligible candidate, was admitted to the ballot in California, and thus harmed and disadvantaged candidates running on third-party tickets, such as Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson.
The ridiculous ruling was characterized by Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs as something “written by the Defense,” according to the World Net Daily report.
The Post & Email will highlight the most vicious and erroneous statements in the ruling.
CARTER SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE A VICIOUS BAITER OF PATRIOTS
What Judge Carter did was not only deny justice, he viciously insulted and baited patriotic Military personnel everywhere, by his outrageous statement regarding the military plaintiff, Jason Freese in the case:
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Just prior to this outrageous insult, the Carter shows himself to be a true supporter of dictatorship over law, when he claims that U.S. Military must serve even if their chief commander has no lawful authority to command them:
Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
He then ridiculously claims that those who participate in the reception of funds taken unlawfully from the national treasury are not capable of being found guilty of crime, so long as they claim a reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of the theft. For a Judge famed for his opposition to Mexican Mafia, he seems to have entire support for the Chicago Mob. Isn’t that a racist attitude, from the liberal point of view?
Carter’s laughable ruling also claims that you have a duty to pay taxes to the IRS, but you have no rights to ask whether the President who signs the spending bills for those taxes is legitimate: or in other words, you are a feudal serf, and must pay no matter how illegitimate or corrupt the Federal Government becomes, because, in the Judge’s words, the Supreme Court says so!
~~PING!
BTTT
Its only worth reporting now that it has been dismissed... you knew that was coming.
Right .... look at the lineup of cowards now
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=orly%20taitz%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Oh look .. even the premier political website, POLITICO, is chiming in ... NOW. Any spine or journalistic integrity there for investigating the matter and finding the truth? Nah ...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/Brutal_ruling_quashes_birthers_suit.html
Sounds like passing the buck. Congress says this issue should be resolved in the court. The court says it should be resolved by Congress.
It’s what the media chumps have been doing since the beginning.
As the judge himself said today:
"Plaintiffs' arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead Plaintiffs' counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the langugage of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs' enthusiastic presentations, Taitz' argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep, counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court."
Her clients fired the stupid dentist. On what basis did she even remain on the case? Gary Kreep is appealing the case. Let's hope Orly Taitz will take her wigs and head back to Tel Aviv or Woscow or wherever she came from, and leave the case to a serious attorney.
Kreep is on BlogTalkRadio tonight to discuss it, and although a decent guy, he is clearly pissed at Orly for so thoroughly screwing this up.
Clever ...
Do you think the hospital would actually
be complicit in accepting funds or agreeing
to be a party to it?
Now POLITICO is SO brave ... their headline ... NOW.
Brutal ruling quashes birthers’ suit
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/Brutal_ruling_quashes_birthers_suit.html
No offense to those who like me were hoping for a better outcome and some answers, but who didn’t see this one coming? Orly is not the best dentist for this job.
It is illegal to accept a donation that is not in keeping with the intended purpose.
I think you see her and the situation very clearly.
Sorry... but anybody that hitched their wagon to Orly’s horses deserves a little drag through the mud.
Sounds to me like it’s about over.
And a fraudulent basis as well, since no "American birth records" have ever been presented.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. The judge was very reasonable in his decision and bent over backwards to not give Orly what she deserves. Just FWIW, what do you think the “word” is?
parsy, who was expecting this decision
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.