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.
I don’t have the power to shut down discussion. Stop using that tired old argument.
Stop using that tired old argument.
That is what your Ping list is about.
Save your breath. You’re not making a bit of difference here.
If it were thinking that it was something to make a difference to you -- I might also think that you might be trying that, yourself -- with me.
However, since I know that you are not trying with me and I'm not trying with you... it's no big deal.
Carry on... :-)
By law, including federal law as they interpret it, the Offial of the State of Hawaii is not supposed to be revealing anything from the Birth Certificate. At least not without the permission of the principal, in this case The One. But she did. So I would not put much faith in the lawyers of the Hawaiian Health Department.
Actually..., I wouldn't make that assumption. My assumption is that they did clear it with him, and he gave permission for what they did say. My assumption is that the State of Hawaii lawyers told the officials that they had to get permission from the person involved, and then they got it.
Any statement she made about the authenticity of a certified copy of the birth certificate, long or short form, that was produced for the Court, would have to be witnessed and probably made under oath.
Yeah, sounds good to me.
I just don't think we'll be seeing that scenario happen. After about a year and a half of all this stuff and no court doing anything about it (i.e., ordering it be shown) -- for anyone to be looking and hoping for a court to order like that seems like wishful thinking.
I would prefer a more solid and guaranteed approach -- of having the birth certificate shown, by way of a state law which requires a candidate to produce his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state.
They certified the vote count, not the candidates. You'll find nothing from Congress declaring that Obama is actually eligible to the Office.
That was exactly the place for a Congressman to object to someone not being qualified for holding the Office of President of the United States -- at precisely the time that they are certifying the election by the Electoral College. That's when a Congressman has it within their power and ability and within their "standing" to do such a thing.
AND..., no one objected and counted all the votes for a candidate whom others (here) are indicating should have never been able to even receive an Electoral College vote in the first place, much less "count them" or even "certify" it for electing the next President of the United States.
If a Congressman does not object at that point, it's sort of like a wedding where they say "speak now or forever hold your peace"... LOL...
No one spoke up...
It may be a matter of record, but it's not legal evidence. The statement was not given under oath nor submitted to any court.
If it were meant for a court (and if a court had ordered it), it would have been according to the evidence requirements of the court. But, it wasn't for a court and it was not ordered by a court.
The official public statement was for the public, and because of all the complaints about the previous statement not saying specifically that he was born in Hawaii.
So, after getting incessant calls from the public to make an official statement on it (and also like many here said that the State should make clear, more so than they did in the first official statement that they made) -- the State of Hawaii did exactly that -- and thus said, officially, that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.
And I have no doubt, that if it were to ever come to a point where any court would order a certified copy for the court, they would also do that, too, providing that information to the court showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.
As it stands now, the public has its information. If the court wants it, according to its evidence requirements -- they can order it.
The so called "Smith" Kenyan birth certificate was at least submitted as evidence to a court, and was accompanied by a witnessed affidavit.
LOL... yeah I heard about the scammer, Smith... :-)
I saw it when he tried to sell that birth certificate on eBay, and was shut down about five or six times, and then I saw the WorldNetDaily article (or articles) about him and how he went back on having WorldNetDaily look at it and verify it (like he said). And I also saw where several FReepers spotted that he was some sort of criminal and also a scammer and had some kind of history of scamming (at least according to several FReepers who posted on it and looked at it).
And then I saw where Smith also accused Taitz of trying to get him to lie and saying that Taitz wanted to jump his bones -- or something like that (it gets confusing with what that guy says)... LOL...
Having a scammer like that swear out anything doesn't mean too much considering his background. Even his previous lawyer (quoted by WorldNetDaily) said that his client was not following through with what he said he would do and he was dropping him because of that. Smith also have some kind of "agent" too, and that agent was dropping him because of the kind of flake that he was.
Using Smith as some kind of "poster boy" for some "legitimacy" on this issue, is like putting Hitler on the board of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League)... :-)
Only in some cases, a couple of states, and some localities in others, is a long form necessary. It depends on what is on the short form, and it's accuracy. In one case the "place" shown was not the place of birth, which is absolutely required for a passport based on citizenship by birth in the US.
That's good to know, because there were FReepers who were maintaing their "arguments" about having a certain kind of birth certificate on the basis that everyone has to supply a long form birth certificate or else they cannot get a passport. And they were using that as proof that something was very wrong with anyone who said otherwise.
In the meantime, and as you've said, I've found out from other FReepers that this is not the case.
But, it does go to show people one thing, if nothing else, even though FReepers maintain something is true or it is a certain way -- doesn't always pan out that way. I think that many on these threads should keep that in mind that not all ways of looking at something or assertions in arguments (which are made here) are always true, even though they sound good at first hearing.
I find that the "way things play out in real life" -- is the "clue" that everyone should take on "how things work". It's the "real life example" of it actually working and how people go through a process (that you can observe happening) that speaks to the reality of things and also speaks to the reality of the "interpretations" that people can give to it.
It's like someone else posted here about how many agencies and people and officials and representatives and even a President and Vice President -- were all complicit in helping (or doing nothing about) Obama getting in office. They said...
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.
And I said in regards to that...
Now, when I see that there is an "apparent conspiracy" (of some sort) by which every member of the Supreme Court is involved, every member of Congress is involved, every member of the Joint Chiefs is involved, most members of the DOD, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service is involved, state run media is involved, along with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news is involved -- and they all know that Obama is not qualified per the Constitution -- then that -- is a bigger conspiracy than even exist with the UFO coverup that several FReepers talk about here, too...
That's a mighty big conspiracy.... of humongous proportions... LOL... [And I might add, it apparently involves Vice President Cheney and President Bush, too].
On the other hand, there may be a simpler explanation than this huge and monstrous conspiracy just mentioned above -- it could be that you don't have the correct understanding of the issue... :-)
From ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2426001/posts?page=102#102
:-)
While it's true “anchor babies” are US Citizens, they are NOT Natural Born Citizens so are not eligible to be President.
That remains to be seen, as there are people on both sides of that issue. It's going to take a Supreme Court decision to settle that one.
Star traveler is a well known PITA on these threads....
It's never a pain to have the complete information about an issue or something under discussion. That's just the nature of boards and discussing things -- not everyone is going to agree with you... :-)
And no, I'm not one of "those," I am one of MANY!!
BTW, let alone, there were not neither Republicans nor Democrats, there was a third "President" candidate that was not a NBC either, less an American citizen!!!
Ahhh..., I see... so you're one of those "many" who didn't vote for the GOP ticket that I've heard other FReepers complaining about... LOL...
And yes, I did hear about that other guy, but I didn't figure he was worth even mentioning since he wasn't going anywhere and could hardly get a few states to list him on the ballot in the first place... :-)
I need to thank you for starting all your posts with “YOU WERE SAYING” followed by the quote in blue type. This way, I can skip your inane posts. Really helpful, especially on long threads.
I wouldn't have it any other way and am glad you are able to skip them... LOL...
And does anyone truly believe that in the million-to-one chance SCOTUS takes such a case, they'll render a decision that declares the sitting president, a man popularly elected by 69 million voters, ineligible for the office that he was previously sworn into by the Chief Justice himself in a ruling that relegates millions of Americans to the status of 2nd class citizens?
Yeah, I don't think they are going to do anything about Obama at this stage, after he's been in office for about a year. And there's not even a case before them, for them to decide this issue anyway, right now. So, it will be a long time before anything comes of this, if ever.
What I've seen of the Supreme Court is that on some things, they let an issue fester and mix things up for a while, before they decide to even hear a case. It's like they want to see how it "works out" several times over again, in lower courts before they'll even listen to anything (if they ever do decide to listen to something). Maybe they don't do that on all things, but they do on some, it seems.
I gave you wiggle room in a private email a short while back to clarify your post which was reviled by many FReepers, and you stood by it.
I will gladly post it for all to see if you wish, otherwise, FO
I will gladly post it for all to see if you wish, otherwise, FO
I'll gladly post my follow-ups, too... :-)
Go for it
My understanding is that the only difference between a natural-born citizen and a non-natural-born citizen is that the former was an American citizen from his or her birth and the other one was not and was subsequently granted citizenship.
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.