Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
Then why has Hussein spent $1.7 million to date to keep his birth information secret, and how can the judge rule on the question without demanding to see personally the documentation that 0bama is in fact, "natural born"?
This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
LOL! (Sgt.) Carter gets the phone call he can’t refuse!
This is such a load of BS. We were told by the coursts we had to wait until he was elected, now we are told he is elected and it is too late.
“Where Justice Ends Tyranny Begins”
There is no justice in the land and the people lament.
At this point, the only body with the Constitutional right to address that question is congress - not the court.
“Voters trump Constitution” was my characterization of what Carter’s statement implied. I understand his position on standing (which I don’t really agree with) and on separation of powers (which I certainly don’t agree with, since Congress in this case is complicit). But his statement about the millions of voters who pulled the lever for Barry was neither here nor there.
Completely wrong ... voters do not trump the Constitution. The people can change the Constitution, in a preascribed manner, but the majority opinion is not the rule of law in America. So if Carter has stated this erroneous notion, he is in fundamental error toward the oath he took.
He didn’t say they did and others are misreprenting his use of the voter statement. jmo.
You need to go read the p. 29 of the Order to see what the Judge said and the reasoning he used to reach that decision.
Click the following link, grab the scroll bar on the right side of the order and pull it down to the Disposition: page 29 and read what he said.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
Well, looks like you have it all figured out then.
Though, by the way...
That kind of hyperbole is, at best, unhelpful.
It’s just too bad that everyone that knew Obama wasn’t eligible before he was elected didn’t follow the guidelines of the constitution.
No, I take it back-- between the nominating conventions and election day, any candidate on enough state ballots to potentailly win enough electoral votes to be elected would probably have standing.
Here we go, ready???
But irrelevant to the comment.
The logical end to the non-stop encroachment of government into the lives of the citizenry by both major political parties is a very different thing from whether or not this judge was correct in this ruling.
Standing is a very well defined judicial concept. To make the claim that a correct application of the concept is fascism because it doesn't produce the results you want isn't a very convincing argument.
Civil war is coming...prepare your family...these actions only move us toward the inevitable result at warp speed.
It is unfortunate...if Obama had nothing to hide he could show is birth certificate and this would be over and he would gain huge cred...but since he doesn’t you know there is a smoking gun here and the masses will understand this soon enough and there will be no stopping the public outrage...
Dude, you crack me up. A tiny green buoy of reason in this giant frothing soup o’crazy...
Why does it matter if there was perjury involved? IOW, if Judge Carter wanted the truth then he would not have dismissed the case. He has no proof there was any perjury because obama has not released his long form BC.
Or, does this leave an open door for Dr Orly to pursue the BC issue to prove herself innocent?
On another note, I think Lucas should be Joe Plummered. How much and by whom was lucas paid for his complaint against Dr Orly?
Did Judge Carter pull an Alinsky on Dr Orly? accusing her for what zero has been doing.
Do I take that your attorney mind is extremely gleeful that the usurper in the W.H. is skating again and have free hands of continue to dismantle the country WE love???
I think this increases the chances that Obama will NOT seek another term.
If Obama runs again, he is open to a court challenge of his elligibility. If he is found inelligible, all his acts are null and void.
The hearings have been interesting to say the least.
Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.
While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court.
The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service.
While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.
Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
No sanctions, though. (Yet.)
And you base this on what legal principle? Here's a hint, look up De Facto Officer Doctrine.
Whatever appoints Obama has made, whatever laws or Executive or Military orders he has signed will have the full force of law (when applicable), even if at some later date he is found by the Congress to have committed perjury and fraud when obtaining his office. and subsequently removed from that office by Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.
This is a well-settled principle of American jurisprudence.
believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.
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.