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.
You know what they say about assumptions.
The problem here is not with one making an assumption while the other does not... the problem here is that both are making an assumption... LOL...
[you are and I am... :-) ...]
I've seen nothing to indicate that such permission was sought or granted.
And..., (using the same "format" here... LOL...)...
"I've seen nothing to indicate that the State of Hawaii did not follow the law and did not request permission."
After all if he'd going to grant permission for some of the information to be released, why not all of it?
That State of Hawaii had only interest in solving the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii, since that was the point of contention -- for many FReepers that I saw posting here. And they would have asked permission, when following the law about releasing such information.
Now, as to why someone did not say to "release all the information that you have on the birth records"... well, as I've said and posted elsewhere, my guess is that there is some embarrasing information about who his father really is... :-)
AND..., having heard this from lawyers, too... (and I would imagine that he would follow good lawyer's advice, too) -- lawyers have told me to not answer questions that are not asked. I doubt that the State of Hawaii asked him to release all information and I doubt Obama would answer a question that he was not asked... :-)
So, they cannot oject to the candidate, only to the electoral votes themselves.
Objection to Electoral College votes is objection to a candidate, as they are casting the vote for a particular candidate. And it should be clear that an objection can be raised to the vote, if the vote is a vote for a candidate that cannot be President under the Constitution, and is thus disqualified.
That should be obvious.
You disqualify votes to disqualify a candidate. [it actually happens quite a bit in politics, you disqualify the "vote", you disqualify the "voter" in order to disqualify the candidate/issue ... :-) ... ]
The President of the Senate, that is VP Cheney, did not ask for objections as the law requires, which would have been the point where objections would be entered.
Actually there are some things that have to be done before that, in order for an objection to be raised. It has to be in writing and it has to be submitted ahead of time.
What Vice President Cheney did (or did not do) was ask that question as no one had submitted such an objection, in writing, ahead of time, as required.
However, both Vice President Cheney and President George Bush should have been raising the issue of disqualifying these Electoral College votes for Obama and working with certain legislators (ahead of time) to submit these objections, if they knew that he was not qualified per the Constitution.
It's apparent to me, by their silence and their inaction, that they did not think that Obama was disqualified per the Constitution.
The point being that Smith signed an affidavit under penalty of perjery.
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word or the sworn testimony of a proven criminal and scam artist as valid... no matter if he's swearing on a stack of Bibles... LOL...
I mean, after FReepers tore into him, showed him to be the criminal and scam artist that he was, and when WorldNetDaily said that he failed to follow through with what he said he would do in allowing them to check the birth certificate for authenticity (or even show them) and when his lawyeer dropped off because he said that his client wouldn't follow through with what he said (according to WorldNetDaily) and when his agent said he was dropping out, because his client would not follow through with what he said -- and when he says something about jumping Taitz's bones or something like that and being "involved" with her -- and he accuses Taitz of telling him to lie (if you can believe that or not, I really don't know) -- all that tells me that character should be sitting in jail about now.
That guy "Smith" is sorta like that guy "Chief Editor Korir" who claimed that he had Michelle Obama on tape saying that Obama was born in Kenya -- and -- Berg even represented the good ole "chief editor" for a while, too... LOL...
There was even Ed Hale who was going to sue Chief Editor Korir, because the ole chief was going to give the tape to Fox News and not to Ed Hale... :-)
This whole thing of the various claims really gets crazy at times... :-)
The "Good Doctor" (who apparently had a heck of time passing her exams, and has no speciality) has done no such thing.
The State of Hawaii, and most especially not the Good Doctor, has no authority to declare anyone a "natural born citizen", because that determination takes more information than they have in their records. The long form BC only has parent's birth place, not their citizenship.
That's why state governments employ lawyers and have a bunch on staff... they cover things like this... doncha know... :-)
That is one of the points, they obviously DON'T want it. They don't want to look at any evidence, and AFAIK, haven't.
It's as I've said all along -- in that the problmem with getting a court to compel a candidate to produce a birth certificate is going to be a failing process (as I've said from the beginning) -- because -- there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate.
And hence..., that's the reason for enacting a state law which requires the candidate to produce a birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state.
It's no wonder the courts won't compel the candidate (any candidate) to produce a birth certificate... there's no legal requirement that the candidate do so.
They will need to provide the actual document, that's the only way that any plaintiff could challenge it's legitimacy. If they only provide selected information, there is no way the information can be verified. But if they provide the whole thing, hospital records can be checked, the doctor can be reasearched to see if that doctor actually practiced in that hospital at that time. Or if no doctor is shown, and the birth is recorded as being "at home", or some other place not a Hawaiian hospital, that's a horse of a different color, but still might leave some room for verification and/or rebuttal.
Get the state law enacted and then you'll have the legal ability to compel the showing of that birth certificate and the information on it.
I could see that as a required solution to the problem of showing the birth certificate from the time just after the election.
A troll is a troll is a troll and ST is one.
Well, you know... such a statement coming from one of the Obama Derangement Syndrome is not such a bad thing...
I mean, that would be a sort of compliment, doncha know... :-)
Or are you still speaking from the pan @ 292??
Either way your words come from the world of "Word-Salad, making no sense???
Or are you still speaking from the pan @ 292??
No..., I was saying that it's you who is in that pan, according to some other FReepers that I've been reading... since you're one of those that they accuse of allowing Obama to win by not voting for the GOP ticket... LOL...
Hey! It wasn't me that was posting those sentiments, but some other FReepers...
How are you doing in that pan? :-)
01/12/2010 108 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: denying 105 Motion to Transfer Case. Plaintiffs now request that their quo warranto claims be transferred to the District Court of the District of Columbia. As this case has been dismissed as to all claims with prejudice, meaning that there is no longer any action pending before this Court, the Motion to Transfer is DENIED. (ade) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
Ummmm... are you trying to tell me that Orly Taitz "struck out again"... LOL...
Now, people -- are you sure Orly Taitz is not working for Obama? I mean with friends like Orly Taitz, conservatives couldn't be doing any worse on this issue... :-)
I would say it's about time to enact the simplest solution of all -- in order to get the birth certificate -- which is a state law which requires a candidate to produce a birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state...
Isn't it about time to do things the easy way...? :-)
WOW, you call us "BIRTHERS" which makes YOU an "AFTER-BIRTHER"!
FYI what's in the pan is an after-birth, a dead organ!!
It also called a Placenta. Your comparison of a "Birther" to an "After-Birther" just tells everything that you are a dead Placenta/After-Birther with no brain left intact!!!
FYI what's in the pan is an after-birth, a dead organ!!
I believe that what I was trying to point out to you -- that this is what some other Freepers think of you, because of your refusal to vote for the GOP ticket (since you dont think McCain was qualified under the Constitution) -- and that got us Obama in the White House right now... LOL...
You don't have to, but in court you do need to refute it with evidence. Other sworn statements, certified documents, and so forth. You can't point to an image on a website somewhere and say "See, that settles it".
It's no wonder the courts won't compel the candidate (any candidate) to produce a birth certificate... there's no legal requirement that the candidate do so.
There are lots of things that a court can compel that there is no statutory legal requiremet for.
Courts are supposed to be about determining facts and rendering opionions based on those facts, and the law, including the Constitutions of the state and nation.
Besides they would not compel the candidate to produce the document, they would compel the state of Hawaii to produce it during "discovery". The law does provide for that. Look it up on the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics Website which states:
A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:
...
a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
ROTFLMAOAPMP!
Knowing your posting history, I give it a 95% chance that you found the Carter ruling at the DUmmie like http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ blog.
Google search bots are very active and within minutes of a change on a website it gets indexed at Google. Only two showed after 12 hours of being indexed, Scribd, and 8 hours indexed on Google for the wacky Moonbat blog. The evidence:
That's how I know where you lurk at.
Ping...It thought you may want to take note.
Well, you know... such a statement coming from one of the Obama Derangement Syndrome is not such a bad thing...
I mean, that would be a sort of compliment, doncha know... :-)
_____________________________________________________
Well coming from Startraveler, the “my nose is stuck up Obama’s smelly as*” troll, do you think I give a sh*t what you think? Doncha know? LOL LOL LOL
You are deranged and since you hope there is a terrorist attack that kills innocent Americans, if it does happen, what a pity if you are there. Not much of a loss IMO.
You don't have to, but in court you do need to refute it with evidence. Other sworn statements, certified documents, and so forth. You can't point to an image on a website somewhere and say "See, that settles it".
It shouldn't be too hard, in a court with this character, to simply discredit his testimony simply on the basis of his actions thus far with the "birth certificate" that he was trying to sell it on eBay for a million dollars ... LOL... and then going to get WorldNetDaily to verify it for him and then refusing to let them do it. And not following through with what he said he would do, causing his attorney to drop out. And then, his agent not being able to rely on what he said and then he dropped off. And when they bring up the other scams that he tried to "run" -- this will look like another scan. By the time some attorney gets through with him, you wouldn't buy a peanut-butter sandwich from the guy! LOL...
But, that's all in a court of law. And nothing is happening in that area. Even Orly Taitz can't get any traction. Besides Smith is now calling Orly Taitz a liar on the stand, too... :-)
So, is it Orly Taitz who is a liar or is it Lucas Smith who is the liar? Good question there.
This guy would be blown out of the water for being someone anyone could trust with any testimony, when an attorney got through with him.
HOWEVER, in the "court of public opinion" -- this guy would be lower than low. When you put him up against the State of Hawaii and their public statement -- and then try to put the word of a scammer against that State of Hawaii... I think you know where the public opinion is going to go...
At any rate, you've got two different venues here. One is a court and the other is the public. The State of Hawaii has spoken to the pubic (and has a lot more credibility, too, since they are the ones who keep the records and print out the "certified copies").
The other is the legal venue in a court and with a judge. As I said, there's no sign that is ever going to take place.
There are lots of things that a court can compel that there is no statutory legal requiremet for.
That's very true, but the courts are going to have to have a reason for it that will "fly" with them. No one has been able to do that. That's what we're talking about.
You're not going to go into court saying, "I know that there's no legal requirement for a candidate to show his birth certificate but I know you can compel it, if you so order. So, will you order it, so we can take a 'look-see' at it?"
They're gonna say, "What for?!".... LOL...
If there's not a "what for" that's going to fly with the court, they're not even going to get anywhere near that track. If there's not a case for which the showing of the birth certificate is relevant for some reason, no court is going to order a copy of it. They're not going to go for a "fishing expedition" no matter how earnestly you want to see it... :-)
Naturally
Even without evidence it’s obvious. Wrong side of the street in every way, on every topic.
It’s nice to have evidence. Ha.
You are deranged and since you hope there is a terrorist attack that kills innocent Americans, if it does happen, what a pity if you are there. Not much of a loss IMO.
Ooops... looks like you missed the post up above... better have you read it... :-)
The following from Post #300
and the post where she wished there would be a horrible terrorist attack and Americans killed just to make the Dems look bad. Clearly ST is demented.
Well, I don't know for sure if you're demented or not -- but -- I can tell you lack some good reading skills and you also lack some knowledge of what the Bush Administration said, too... :-)
Let me help you out here... so we can get you "up to speed" in a hurry...
As we all know (who have been keeping up on these Islamic terrorists and what our government has been saying and doing about it) -- we've heard multiple times from various Bush Administration officials in the past that it was a certainty that Islamic terrorists would succeed in a massive attack on the United States, at one time or another (but we didn't know when...), something on the scale of 9/11 or greater.
They've let us know repeatedly that this is the case. They've said it's "not a matter of if" but only "a matter of when"... and that they will certainly succeed.
The reasoning that they gave for that is that they've said that in order for us to succeed in preventing such an attack, we have to be perfect in preventing 100% of these kinds of attacks, while all the other side has to do is succeed at "only one such attack"....
The Islamic terrorists can fail 99 times and onlyl succeed one time in this kind of attack, and that's the big one that the government is talking about.
Now, I hope I've gotten you "up to speed now" -- since you've missed that part in the past.
AND..., another thing you may have missed in the past, apparently so, are several threads here on Free Republic, where our government (in the Bush Administration) has been making plans to set up large camps and facilities for handling larger populations that will be displaced from these kinds of terrorist attacks (that they've said they are guaranteed to happen and succeed). These large camps are meant for various kinds of disasters, and not only for Islamic terrorists, but there are being planned right now (and were during the Bush Administration and they were behind schedule in getting those camps completed for rescuing large populations that would be dislocated during any such major attack like they say is coming).
And so, again, another item to "get you up to speed"... :-)
NOW..., since you're up to speed on a few details that you were missing before, let's propose a scenario for you in the attack that is coming and will succeed, as the Bush Administration has been telling us, in the past, when they were in office. I don't think Obama is saying very much about it now, though (as a side-note here).
Two scenarios here... one is that such an attack happens during a Democrat Administration, you know... the one who continually denies the dangers of such an Islamic terrorist attacks and say that the conservatives and Republicans are to blame for these things in the first place.
The other scenario is that such an attack happens during a Republican Administration...
Between the two scenarios of what is going to be happening in the future, I would prefer that such an attack happen during a Democrat Administration and not during a Republican Administration.
Can you imagine what kind of havoc that the Democrats would try to place on a Republican Administration for them not keeping us safe, when such a things happens? I can imagine it... they're pretty good at doing that.
On the other hand, if this coming attack happens during a Democrat Administration, it will force them to deal with the realities of the Islamic terrorists -- something that we need to do anyway, and in any case. The only problem is that the Democrats always block any effective action on this. With this attack that is coming, they Democrats could not block the kind of effective action we need when such a thing happens, with it being on their watch...
That scenario is the preferable one of the two...
I hope you've gotten fully up to speed now... :-)
Logorrhea - sort of like diarrhea, but other end. Effluent just as repulsive.
It’s too fast for stream of consciousness typing - as repellent as the consciousness revealed is. Some has got to be copy’n’pasted.
It’s like a huge broken sewage pipe.
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.