Posted on 09/10/2009 9:42:35 PM PDT by moonpie57
I just talked to Orly:
She has 2 good news items that she is very busy with right now:
1. Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery - immediately’.
2. Judge Land will allow her to present before the court in GA. She is leaving now to fly to GA to appear before Judge Land at the Federal Building in Columbus, GA at 2:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, 9/11/09).
She would like as many military supporters to be there as possible. I called Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com), and he will see what he can do. If you have any contacts there, please advise them.
(Excerpt) Read more at resistnet.com ...
Here’s the L-E reporter on the case.
ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com
But since we're speculating, let's say I'm right and the case is dismissed due to lack of standing. What will be your explanation for that result?
I’ll put it more bluntly. Do you want Orly to succeed or not?
How about like in the old days, simple things like colds, small cuts and scratches, a doctor would come to your door and treat you for a low low cost, but, for the major things have insurance.
She doesn't deserve a "hat tip," she deserves a swift, hard kick in the rear. Her seemingly endless errors are more than just an embarrassment.
I'm sure there are actual lawyers with actual experience who would be willing to do her courtroom stuff pro bono, and she's not taking advantage of it.
After being slammed many times now for basic procedural errors, one begins to wonder if the absence of experienced lawyers on her team is something other than an oversight.
It’s a bit like that.
LOL!
The explanation for lack of standing, if it comes to that, will be as bogus as the rest of the lack of standing decisions that have been flippantly made. The notion that citizenry has no standing - and suffers no direct harm - from an imposter playing president is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
And I'll repeat my position once again, I want the rule of law to win out. If Taitz does not have standing to sue then I want her case thrown out, regardless of the defendant. If she does have standing, then I want the case to continue. I want no special treatment for her or Obama, period. I want her to make her case the best she can, and I want the judge to rule on its merits and according to the law and let the chips fall where they may.
Clear enough? Finally?
There are gazalions of lawyers out there, but only a small handful are willing to do this, apparently. Just like there are gazilions of journalists, but only a couple amateurs that are willing to take down ACORN with serious investigative tactics.
YOU. Since I don’t think Judge Carter is an idiot, I doubt he said that.
No, that makes you the idiot and a troll. You signed up on FR to swooped in to defend NS. Did he call you as I was kicking his tail all over the place? Here's what Judge Carter said at the hearing.
OC Register, "Carter repeated said he was eager to get the matter settled.
“If President Obama fits the qualifications under the rules of the court, the longer the delay the more credibility it lends to the complaint,” he said. “If President Obama does not meet the court’s requirements, the delay also causes a problem.” "
I told you the Judge's words where profound in meaning. And I told you yesterday that the onus and burden of proof is on the defendant Obama. As an NS defender and troll, you discounted it.
IOTW, you believe citizens have no standing to demand discovery of one of a key constitutional requirement regarding our government.
So it's all one big conspiracy? The man can manipulate the entire legal system and the governments in half a dozen countries but he can't pass his health care plan? Go figure.
The notion that citizenry has no standing - and suffers no direct harm - from an imposter playing president is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
Taitz's plaintiff has to suffer real harm. An injury in fact to a legally protected interest. One that is clearly identified, and which has occured or is imminent. This injury must be actual, not conjectural or hypothetical. What's the injury suffered in this case?
Barry made a public statement on his FTS campaign web site that his birth was governed by Great Britain (by way of his foreign national father).
The real question here is, by putting in the NBC requirement (almost certainly after reading Jay's letter to Washington) did the framers intend for someone born under foreign jurisdiction (even if assuming HI birth) to be a NBC and therefore POTUS eligible? Also, is that in our countries best interest even today (dual citizen at birth)? I say not a chance, for both questions. There is no evidence/writings/discussions from the time of the writing of the Constitution that would imply NBC could be someone born with dual citizenship. There is, evidence to the contrary.
Being born in HI will only mean he's not an illegal alien (baring a Naturalization record), IMO.
Life just isn't fair sometimes, is it?
Correct.
No one believes you except a few trolls,... *ell I doubt if they believe you. Your defending your girl Obama to be free of lawsuits and other problems so he can push his communistic agenda unhindered.
Since you believe that, based on previous dismissals, are you going to change your opinion if/when one or more cases are not tossed?
I’m intrigued by the phrase “qualifications under the rules of the court.”
Out of context, I have to assume that he is referring to the standing issue - or more likely - the failure to serve issue. I mean, his qualifications for president are not under the rules of the court.
Interesting though that he would say that though.
Read Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 some day. It’s a decent introduction to the concept of taxpayer standing.
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.