Posted on 09/08/2009 2:15:45 PM PDT by pissant
A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.
In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.
In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.
But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You're right. He's fishing for info. Cut him off.
That will be tough to do after it blossoms.
This is less about the trial and more about the discovery process.
The trial will take place in the court of Public Opinion.
No, I do believe it's the can't.
So you would like to believe.
Considering the number of "public" that are products of the government school system post-1960, I wish you best of luck with that. LOL
Seriously, after sleeping on it last night, I have awakened this morning a BIT more optimistic. We shall see.
(Full disclosure, I'm post-1960 government school educated, but fought to avoid absorbing the BS!)
OH NOES! I drew post 666!! Oh, the humanity!
He will have destroyed the Country by then!
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
And by all means, please do the same. I find much of it very amusing.
Yup. And we all have standing in it.
If this Judge orders documents released from Hawaii, Will Hussein refuse to comply with the order? Will the Judge then find him in contempt and fine him, and find for the plaintiff by default? If so, Will all service members then be compelled to lay down arms? This could get ugly real fast.
Might be at Berg’s site
It seems it was language Obama’s attorneys used:
3. Defendants have not pointed to any legitimate privacy concerns. Defendants have failed to point out any substantiated specific examples demonstrating that disclosure will cause a defined and serious injury;
4. Plaintiff does not seek access to the requested information for any improper purpose;
5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents;
http://puma-facts.com/Berg.aspx
Considering the number of “public” that are products of the government school system post-1960, I wish you best of luck with that.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time:
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
(49% disapprove of overall performance)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335502/posts
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Sept. 7 (0bama -13)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2333969/posts
CNN Poll: Independents disapprove of Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-independents-disapprove-of-obama/
Meant to ping you to the exposure of NS duplicity deceit
I know. Not saying you’re wrong. Matter of fact, I hope I’M wrong.
They say revealing these documents raises a legitimate privacy concern and the above mentioned risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.
The source of that embarrassment was not specified.
++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, right. We all have to do it for high level (and not so high level jobs) and we have to let any chips fall with our records, related to clearances and such.
Any embarassment is theirs for not properly vetting their candidates. LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!
The whole story is like a soap opera, every day ending with a new cliffhanger :-)
+++++++++++++++++
I know where you are in your thinking on this. It’s hard to keep up with all the possibilities and the motivations...but this much we know.
Something stinks.
And bammy won’t clear it up, and/or is covering it up, which makes it stink like Watergate times 10 or 100, depending on your point of view as to the magnitude and gravitas of these issues.
Until and unless he clears this up, it is a huge fopah, foisted onto the American People, and Obama has no one to blame except himself, and perhaps the Ministry of Propoganda, which has willingly created his cult of personality and then come along for the ride.
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.