Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
Not true. He was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama
“and Juan’s mother also testified that he was born on base, and she was there, you weren’t.”
His birth certificates say otherwise. Both short & long form.
“Being born on base probably doesn't matter”
It doesn't
“one way or the other. Vattel and Blackstone both make exceptions for those born while their citizen/subject parents are outside the country in the service of the country/state.”
Only one problem with this. Vattel & Blackstone aren't mentioned in the constitution.
It's very simple, you have to be BORN HERE.
Obviously you guys are being too polite to the Birthers. Shape up, or you don’t get an official troll tee-shirt.
Thank you ... I’ve seen another post
where it was entered 10/7 .. so I
guess nothing was actually issued
today by the judge.
Not at all, it's a fair question. First, it's entered into the record because it was discussed in open court and - without reading the transcript from Monday - I believe that's what respective counsel agreed to with the judge.
As to it's relevance with respect to the MTD - there isn't any. The MTD is under advisement by the bench, so the "trial" continues on other fronts, to the extent that it can pending the decision on the MTD. In this instance, the continuation is just normal housekeeping.
When judges have a busy docket - as it appears Carter does - it's not at all unusual to give great deference to the court's (his) schedule. The court is just following it's SOP, irrespective of any pending motions. It's as simple as that.
As an aside, regardless of how a trial date is characterized as "final", it's never "final". Trial dates change from the "finalized" date all the time, both in state and federal court.
LOL! I was thinking maybe he was dyslexic and mispelled his name. Old D*ck H*ad sounds more accurate.
I know, but why solidify the schedule if its gonna get dismissed?
Hum? There is no reason at all. Unless he just hasn’t made up his mind yet and is just making sure there is room on the docket. That being said, I think this is good news!
God Bless you Amb.Keyes.
Do you enjoy posting to your other FR trolling accounts aka alter egos? Odd how the writing styles are the same.
Are you posting from the Holiday Inn this afternoon? ;)
Nice try. Obama if found to be ineligible was never POTUS. Totally different issue. Better luck next time.
That being said, I think this is good news!
—
Agree. He could have said case dismissed..
You know Frantzie, I don't expect much from old Stockpirate as he's proven himself to be immature and remarkably simple-minded. But, I did expect more from you.
If you disagree with me, or anyone else, there's no reason to stoop to adolescent name games. It's unbecoming and frankly less than conservative. Debate the merits of your position and leave the sophomoric antics to the losers on the left.
. . . Update at #313.
Reading the court notice, my opinion is this is routine court housekeeping, and means nothing.
The case will probably be dismissed because a quo warranto case must be filed in DC.
“NUTS”
It would be ‘nuts’ for Obama to tell us the simple truth about his past. It would go against his natural nature.
If the election proves fraudulent, why not?
So, a less long winded answer might be that he’s proceeding as if the trial is going forward just in case the trial DOES go forward, but no decision has been made on the MTD. That way they aren’t behind should he rule against the MTD.
Is this your position? I have no idea if you’re right, since your mind seems made up no matter what happens. But I appreciate the explanation. It makes sense. Unfortunately, Orely’s argument can also make sense. It depends on who really knows the law. As usual, we’re left wondering who just thinks they know the law, and who actually does. Do you mind if I ask what your background in law is? I can’t keep track of who is who and what claims people have made. And so much for not being long winded.
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.