Obama birthplace lawyer denied new trial

Orange County Register ^ | 1-13-10 | Martin Wisckol

[STARWISE]

Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.

In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.

Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.

The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.

On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.

“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”

On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.

This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.

The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.

[Desron13]

"Want to stop tax cuts? Sue Ronald Reagan in federal court."

Sorry, this is a straw man argument because if Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, he by existing law cannot be president. It really is not about law suits beyond the people attempting to get him to provide proof of his legitimacy. If he can do this no further action is required. If he cant, we have a real problem.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

Foreigners are by definition not citizens.

[El Gato]

But a candidate who is on the ballot must bring such a challenge

Why? Do Joe and Josephine Citizen have no interest whatsoever in the eligibilty of someone running for one of the most powerful offices in the world? The only one of the top handful that is actually selected by the people of the country?

Sad that we have sunk to that level.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

Under the Constitution, Joe and Josephine Citizen have NO VOTE for the most powerful office in the world.

So, why would they have a particulary strong interest in his or her eligibility?

[Non-Sequitur]

I’m not lawyer and I could put it together in a week to 10 days.

Go for it.

[melancholy]

Ping............

Obama birthplace lawyer denied new trial

Thank you, tutstar.

[tutstar]

exactly

[plenipotentiary]

So. What is the NBC rule for?

[Lurking Libertarian]

The NBC clause was introduced before Naturalised Citizens existed in the US.

Nonsense. The states were naturalizing citizens under the Articles of Confederation, which is why the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 4).

[El Gato]

That validation, in the case of a Kenyan birth certificate, for instance, would include such proof as authentication by Kenyan authorities and examination by a forensic document expert, and not simply an affidavit by the procurer.

That sounds like something to be provided at trial, when the evidence is challenged by the other side. But of course in the case of interest, the document was not looked at, the judge did not ask for any authentication.

You would require me to have a photo of an assailant before I could sue for recovery of damages, my testimony under oath would not be enough to go to trial.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So. What is the NBC rule for?

To keep naturalized citizens from being President.

[Non-Sequitur]

So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

If you can present no evidence to support your claims then why should there be a trial in the first place?

Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.

To weigh the evidence presented for and against the defendant.

No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.

What evidence do they have to offer?

[Non-Sequitur]

Read FRCP 81.(a)(3)

"These rules apply to proceedings for admission to citizenship to the extent that the practice in those proceedings is not specified in federal statutes and has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions."

So who is applying for citizenship?

[Lurking Libertarian]

What I do question is apparently the legal precedence for this framework. How did this come to be? It seems to me that the electorate has ultimate standing when it comes to elected officials. What logically am I missing here? When exactly were we sold down the river by the judiciary on this? What is the case law that led up to this sorry state of affairs?

First, the rules I was referring to on challenging candidates are set by state statutes, not by the courts.

But in general, the rules of standing come out of Madison's idea that the judiciary was to be the "least dangerous branch." The courts are the furthest from popular control of any of the three branches-- judges are appointed, and serve for life-- so they were never meant to be makers of public policy. Courts were designed to settle specific disputes between specific parties; they have the power to declare laws unconstitutional only if the issue comes up in the context of a concrete lawsuit between two adverse parties. (The Constitutional Convention considered, but rejected, a plan under which all new laws would first go before the Supreme Court to decide if they were constitutional.)

Accordingly, courts have held that, in essence, if everyone has standing, then no one has standing. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds; if an issue affects everyone, it should be resolved by the elected branches.

Historically, it has been conservative judges who have been the strongest defenders of tough standing rules, and liberal judges who most sought to bend them, because standing is what limits the power of judges to make policy against the wishes of the majority.

[El Gato]

You don't have to hope, you can read the Federal Rules of Evidence

Like Rule 102 (101 being the scope of the rules and the first rule):

These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.

Like that?

Or maybe rule 301:

Rule 301. Presumptions in General Civil Actions and Proceedings

IOW the Respondent must rebut evidence provided by the plaintiff. In this case the easiest was to do that would have been to provide ... well you know.

Or Rule 803:

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
...
(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.
...
(12) Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates. Statements of fact contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, made by a clergyman, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.

Then there is 902(3):

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
...
(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.

[EDINVA]

I considered that use of ‘we’ to be Americans collectively, the editorial or imperial ‘we,’ as it were. Not the poster defining his/her own fear.

[El Gato]

So by this logic the Federal Government could theoretically confiscate guns and I would not be able to sue them if I didn’t own one to begin with. Likewise, even if I did own one I wouldn’t be able to sue as long as I was financially compensated for the weapon since no financial damage was incurred.

This "doctrine" seems to say that whatever Congress passes, and the (de facto) President signs, cannot be challenged in the courts, as long as it injures everyone.

Would that be the case if they mutually agreed to abolish elections, freezing the membership of Congress and the occupant of the White House, perhaps with replacements via appointments by the Congress approved by the President) or just postpone them "for the duration" of the "present emergency", whatever that might be?

That would a gross violation of several parts of the Constitution, but it would harm everyone equally, and would be a "political question".

That would certainly leave only the final box.

[El Gato]

judges are appointed, and serve for life-- so they were never meant to be makers of public policy

No one is asking them to make policy, although Lord knows they do that all the time. They are being asked to enforce the Constitution. Pretty simple really. If they won't do that, they are FReaking useless.

[rxsid]

"So. What is the NBC rule for?

To keep naturalized citizens from being President."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you contend, then, that the framers where Naturalized Citizens of the United States of America? I would presume you do, otherwise...why the need for the "grandfather" clause?

It certainly couldn't be because they knew they were "Citizen's" (& not NBC). Right?

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.