Posted on 01/11/2010 12:47:03 PM PST by Red Steel
It is my best guess that Obama’s attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over… far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.
Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:
Orly has pointed out that Judge Carter promised to hear the case on its merits. The Justice Department defending Obama conned the Judge into dismissing and used the excuse of “jurisdiction” claiming only Quo Warranto can be brought in Washington DC.
Orly said, “fine, let’s move the case.” She is asking Judge Carter to move the case to Judge Lamberth’s court in DC. This would serve to best expedite the case, including discovery.
Orly is making sure that Judge Carter is aware of the fact that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been stalling for many months now. An original Quo Warranto was filed in Judge Taylor’s Washington DC court (he has since retired.. couldn’t stand the heat in my opinion).. that was back in March, 2009. The Justice Department has done everyting in its power to stall, hide, ignore the case..
Orly is telling the Judge that the longer he waits to allow “we the people” to seek justice in court the more damage that Obama does to our Country. The Justice Department is basically defending a Usuper in office.. the entire system appears to be corrupt.. of course, Eric Holder is simply a puppet for Obama.
We hope and pray that Judge Carter allows this case to be transferred.. Obama will have a much tougher time getting the case dismissed in Washington DC if Carter allows the transfer.. Any kind of ruling against Obama will set a precedent that could literally force the Court into action.
Metaphor:
–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
It is you who needs to learn, my feathered friend.
Humblegunner remains a coward.
Really? My opinion on that single issue defines me? Really?
Whatever you say, chief. You have deeper troubles than I can address.
Ummm..., you could ask Vice President Cheney, who is out there disputing policy with Obama, these days. He might tell you why he didn’t challenge Obama on that basis during the certification of the Electoral College vote, but does dispute Obama today on the basis of bad policy. I’m sure you would get a good answer from Vice President Cheney.
And also, you might ask President George Bush why he didn’t take action to uphold the Constitution, if they thought that this was relevant. But, then again, if you did ask him and got an answer back from President George Bush, it might not be the answer you would like — then you would have to accuse President George Bush of being in cahoots with Obama... LOL...
Those two states issue something called a "Birth Abstract," and those are what are no good for passport purposes. A couple of states also issue a wallet-sized card, which is also no good because it doesn't list the parents at all.
Ping to an Orly Taitz whack-a-mole thread!
I gotta laugh... I didn't know there was a "Orly Taitz whack-a-mole" ping list... it's gotta be appropriate though, considering...
But, no...., don't put me on the list... I'm just laughing about it.
I’m asking you.
Because I am not admitted to practice law in a "Red State;" because election law disputes are best handled by election law lawyers who are experts on election law in the state where the law suit is filed; because a lawsuit at this point is premature in that the law suit needs to be commenced after 0bama's name is placed on the ballot in 2012. Again, the goal is to challenge his qualifications at the next election, not to waste time challenging his qualifications for the 2008 election.
To the Whacked-out-ping list crowd:
-----
Don’t you grow weary of the Orly Taitz freak show?
Don’t you grow weary of being strung along by the ridiculous promises? (”I can have Obama out of office in 30 days!” Her time was up on Oct. 12th, BTW)
Don’t you grow weary of reading one interpretation of events and finding out later that it didn’t really happen that way?
Don’t you grow weary of having your hopes raised only to have them dashed?
Don’t you grow weary of the incompetence and unprofessionalism?
Don’t you grow weary of group think?
The answer:
To: BuckeyeTexan
No.
Then your OK with the precedent set by the usurper. Some of us aren't.
I am well aware of the situation and yes, we will survive, as long as we remember that we are a nation of laws, not men.
Relevant excerpts from Scribd link at rxsid’s Post #42:
at Page 4 of 29:
” ...1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii..”
“Certificates for children born out of State. ( a ) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
“( b ) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
“( c ) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
“We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of Hawaii, as late as 1982, ... allowed then and do allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii.”
.....
at Page 9-10 of 29
“What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless.”
Nope. How old is your copy? This is a copy I got about five years ago from the county clerk's office where I was born.
I’m asking you.
I don't have any authority in the matter, other than casting my vote, which I did for Palin, but that didn't do any good.
However, Vice President Cheney and President George Bush did have authority in the matter and yet, they did not act on that authority and did nothing -- which would indicate to me one of two things...
Either they are in cahoots with Obama in ignoring the real issue (as some posters here are alleging) -- or -- they did not see that it was a problem or an issue.
I would not advise asking someone who did not have any authority in doing something in this issue (like me) -- but I would advise asking a whole long list of people "who did have authority" to do something, why they didn't do anything on the basis that you assert here... that's the real question -- not anything on my own authority.
I only point to other authorities and what they have done and what they have said, as relevant...
My argument is on the basis of those others who did have the position and authority and the ability to do a lot to stop Obama on the basis of the allegations that you raise -- but they didn't. That's where I point to...
That indicates to me, that they know something that you don't know (and I'm sure you can come up with a good conspiracy statement out of what I just said, about them... LOL...)
There is no "precedent." We have a set of laws for challenging a candidate's qualification for office that have been around in many states almost since the founding of the nation. Oily Taitz has not properly followed those laws in challenging 0bama's qualifications. She is a flake and has no idea what she is doing, and she and her loony lawsuits will only hurt the cause in 2012 when someone legitimately attempts to challenge 0bama's qualifications using the proper legal procedures.
Don't put words in my mount, humblegunner. You are a coward, because you personally insult a good woman from your dark, little, internet corner. I believe that I have made myself crystal clear on that.
Really? My opinion on that single issue defines me? Really?
Orly Taitz's legal maneuvering is the topic of the thread that we are having this discussion in. Your personal insults to her is the topic that you and I are discussing. If you want to define yourself on other issues, then by all means, go post in other threads.
Whatever you say, chief.
Damn straight. I'm glad we understand each other.
Right. She doesn’t have the authority.
Brick walls aren’t ill-intentioned, though.
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.