Posted on 07/16/2009 9:30:23 AM PDT by jaxon72
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.
Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
"Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
How many would believe it if they saw the actual birth certificate?
I am begininng to believe the dude has no BC
No I’m not underestimating Taitz. I admire her tenacity but remain unimpressed with her ability to correctly assess situations and outcomes.
She blogged a summary of her interaction with C.J. Roberts that was nothing short of delusional even when granting that she was tired from traveling. Same thing regarding the other justice w/ whom she interacted. She made it sound as if Roberts encouraged her to press on in some way and that he asked her to give him all of her case documentation so he could personally review it. When in reality he thanked her for traveling so far to hear him speak and said he couldn’t comment on pending cases. He said he would be happy to have his security staff accept any case documentation that she wanted to submit at that time.
At first I thought she was just overly optimistic. Now I think she’s having trouble facing reality. She comes to these wild conclusions that no reasonable person would logically reach. For example, she concluded from her last meeting with the judge in the Cook case that a) there would be a trial on the merits and b) that her case would not be dismissed on procedural grounds. No judge would make such commitments.
Look back at her conclusions. She is delusional and is making a fool of herself with claims of significant progress and victories that are really set backs and losses. She gets everybody all excited with her conclusions only to let them down later when they realize she had it all wrong and didn’t know what she was talking about.
Rational people decide what to believe based on many factors. One such factor is the inability to imagine what motivates Obama to continue hiding these details.
How does the present refusal to release information from Hawaii's archives compare with the fact the a purported copy of Obama's documentation was already posted on a web site?
What motivates a person to post SOME information, which would normally create a presumption of openness, but then refuse to post the relevant supporting documents? Knowing the name of the hospital or the name of the attending physician doesn't seem likely to compromise anybody's legitimate privacy concerns; certainly not those of a person serving as Commander-in-Chief.
Some have speculated that Obama fears embarassment over details of paternity or race. How can this be if Obama already referred to himself as a "mongrel"?
Where in the constitution does it permit the judiciary to remove an executive? It doesn’t. The constitution doesn’t prohibit a lawsuit but the court has already address these issues in Jones V Bush and Bush V Gore.
There is no "harassment of the presidency" if all the judge has to do is subpoena official records from the state of Hawaii. The courts have the power to punish those who bring frivilous claims to court.
Where in the Constitution does it permit a president to be impeached for failing to be eligible for office?
If there is no consequence to the eligibility requirement, then why is it there?
Which plaintiff has no standing and how did you determine that?
To put it frankly, the soldier's inexperienced lawyer was completely outplayed by the slicker, smarter Obama lawyers.
Still, we must not give up the good fight, and we must continue to do everything legally possible to bring lawsuits that challenge Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States throughout his first term.
That is, we may not get Obama in his first term, but when the 2012 presidential primaries arrive, Obama will see lawsuits that he can't even imagine today, and the community organizer-state senator will not get a free pass this next time, because Obama will be challenged in every state over and over once he signs his name to an application form to run in each state's primary.
Stanley Ann Dunham:
Myself, I think we should turn some of our energies and resources to finding out if Obama's mother was even in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, the day Obama claims he was born in Hawaii.
For instance, we should continue to put heavy pressure on Kapiolani Hospital to tell us whether or not a Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama---or any variation of that name---was a patient at the hospital on Aug. 4, 1961, the day that Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.
1.I say this: Let us move our focus away from Obama---the Obama camp loves it when we focus on Obama, because they know that Obama can hide behind the tight medical privacy laws---and put our focus and energy on finding out if Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a patient at Kapiolani hospital on Aug.4, 1961, the day Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.
2.I say the above because I believe that the Obama camp knows that Obama and Kapiolani hospital are on shaky ground when they argue that Obama has the legal right to stop the public from finding out if Stanley Ann Dunham, who died many years ago, was or was not a patient at Kapiolani hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.
3. Myself, I don't understand what legal power President Obama as a private citizen has to stop Kapiolani Hospital from officially telling the public whether or not Stanley Ann Dunham or any variation of that name was a patient at the hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.
4.Remember, we are NOT asking to see Stanley Ann Dunham's detailed hospital records.
5. Rather, we are simply asking if she was a patient on the date of Aug. 4, 1961, the day Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.
6.Finally, I wish some bright, never-give-up lawyer or lawyers would challenge Kapiolani hospital officials when the hospital officials argue that they are restrained by medical privacy laws from even admitting that Stanley Ann Dunham was or was not a patient there way back on Aug.4, 1961, nearly 50 years ago for pete's sake.
Not true. Read Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Having either composed briefs or written published articles in both cases, I am curiouis as to what you are referring to. If you are referring to the Paula Jones case in particular Clinton seems to have lost on any issue even approaching what you mention. As to Bush v. Gore, the Constitution was upheld, the prescription of the state legislature mandated by the Constitution was upheld and I don’t see where any issue you seem to be intimating was decided there was even at issue. Can you explain?
Impeachment isn’t the only way to remove the president. See previous discussions on Quo Warranto.
Additionally, if Obama were deemed ineligible to hold the office then the court could theoretically order him to vacate the office as he is illegally occupying it. There would be no need to impeach him as impeachment is a method to remove a legitimate president.
That is, we may not get Obama in his first term, but when the 2012 presidential primaries arrive, Obama will see lawsuits that he can’t even imagine today, and the community organizer-state senator will not get a free pass this next time, because Obama will be challenged in every state over and over once he signs his name to an application form to run in each state’s primary.
So did Leo D'onofrio and Phil Berg. Cut her some slack. She has been doggedly working to expose the truth and has not quit. She hasn't quit on us so lets not quit on her.
I'm puzzled by what you are saying here. Are you claiming that it was the inexperience of the lawyer that caused the military to cancel the soldier's orders? What would a more experienced lawyer have done to prevent this?
What I expect will happen is that the lawyer will now find five other candidates who are willing to become plaintiffs. It will be more difficult then for the military to just cancel all five sets of orders. Eventually, the government would have to abandon this "surrender" mode or the military might cease to exist. I am confident that there are plenty of military who would just love to suddenly become civilians.
Do you recall what happened to the Berlin Wall when the Soviet Union made it clear that it would not shoot people escaping to the West through Czechoslovakia? A trickle of people quickly became a flood.
What I expect will happen is that the lawyer will now find five other candidates who are willing to become plaintiffs. It will be more difficult then for the military to just cancel all five sets of orders. Eventually, the government would have to abandon this “surrender” mode or the military might cease to exist. I am confident that there are plenty of military who would just love to suddenly become civilians.
in Jones V Bush, Jones was the plantiff who claimed Cheney was a citizen of Texas, not Wyoming. According to the 12th amendment, if both members of the ticket came from the same state, that ticket would have to forfeit all of their Electoral votes for that state. The federal courts ruled that Jones had no standing since Jones was not a candidate. It was a good ruling because it prevented Jones from usurping the electoral process.
So the court ruled that in that situation an ordinary citizen and voter did not have standing. How does that relate to a reservist wantting to know if called up and given an order by the C-in-C to kill people he needs to know whether (A) the order is legitimate or (B) the order is given by one not entitled to give it so as to put the officer in jeopardy under the Nuremberg prinicple. Are you saying that if we have a Hitler-style takeover here which could have been prevented by exposing the illegitimacy of the One seeking to take over, obeying the orders of the One to kill, let us say, American conservatives, will be required without questioning?
I like your thinking here. We could toss around all day back and forth impeachment vs. congress vs Supreme Court vs. military taking him away, and in truth none of us know. Now let’s get busy on the SAD (Stanley Ann Dunham)line of inquiry.
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.