Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
There was no perjury because the witnesses never testified.
Or, does this leave an open door for Dr Orly to pursue the BC issue to prove herself innocent?
No.
On another note, I think Lucas should be Joe Plummered. How much and by whom was lucas paid for his complaint against Dr Orly?
Considering Smith's history, Orly shouldn't have touched him with a 10-foot pole - but then she isn't too fussy about who she climbs into bed with (figuratively speaking, of course).
Did Judge Carter pull an Alinsky on Dr Orly? accusing her for what zero has been doing.
No.
“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to perserve or obtain their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them.” Thomas Jefferson
From here out the die is cast.
The standing will be trump by the RACE CARD. Bill/Hillary were effectively silenced as being the very first “Birthers”!!!
Jefferson wasn’t talking about a facepalm.
Not according to the de facto officer doctrine.
True; Judge Carter's opinion makes that clear.
If he is found inelligible, all his acts are null and void.
Probably not. The Supreme Court has ruled that: "The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office."
And he continues: "If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election," a concept that Judge Carter seemed to have dismissed earlier when he noted, "At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot."
It's obvious that Judge Carter realizes that there is a fine line between viable third party candidates like Ross Perot and joke third party candidates like Alan Keyes. He also realizes that not all have standing, nor should they. He ruled Keyes did not.
What I summarized is found on page 24...
Which is a long way from saying that the Congress has standing to sue in a civil proceeding like this one.
Here, check this out, I think you may like it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2319795/posts
John McCain.
Before the inauguration. Not now.
The mind boggles at the prospect of a criminal investigation of Orly's alleged subordination of perjury in which the two folks who filed affidavits in Carter's court alleging the perjury were Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith!!!
Hell yeah! Let's put the on the stand and have them testify to the limo BJ and the Kenya BC on the way to swearing to their claims that Orly tried to get them to lie to Carter!
I can't wait for that...but I suspect that I will be disappointed.
It is the height of irony that Judge Carter would cite affidavits from these two folks who could be totally destructive to the DOJ case for Obama if they are to be deemed credible...which Carter implied they even caused him concern!
I have no doubt Orly is working on it.
A district judge can only hear the case that is brought before him and must conform to prior rulings by the Supreme Court and the appellate court in his circuit. Given the constraints of our judicial system, Judge Carter issued a logical, reasoned and well written decision.
In his decision, he did concede that the actual third party candidates may have standing but could not meet the redressability requirements as the requested remedy of removal of a sitting president could only be provided by congress.
Since Congress is not going to and should not impeach a sitting president based on suspicion, the question is how do you get the evidence.
I believe that presidential candidates qualify for federal matching funds and in some jurisdictions position on ballots based on the electoral results. If Keyes, Drake, Lightfoot or any other candidate brought a case in this same court against the appropriate federal agency dealing with these issues contending that they were deprived of the necessary ballot support due to the existence of a privately funded ineligible candidate and requesting relief in the form of monetary damages and future ballot position, they may actually get a hearing. Since eligibility of Mr. Oboma would be the key, they may be allowed to subpoena his birth record and other evidence and the constitutional question of “natural born citizen” could legitimately be addressed by the court. If they were to win the case, congress would then have a legitimate basis for impeachment.
In any event, to have any chance in a court, the issue must be presented on a legal basis, not an emotional or political one.
Thank you for your answers.
Check out #20 on this thread, you might like it.
Indeed it is. Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have standing. American citizens, presidential candidates, and military personnel do not.
The only result I want is to have 0bama produce his long form birth certificate. Beyond that, if the courts choose to ignore their own previously stated definition of natural born citizen, then I guess it's their business. I want to know who the president is, because he most certainly is not who he says he is.
I really don't care if the judges ruling is correct or not, because it's quite obvious that no court and no judge anywhere in this country is going to do one damned thing about the fraud in the white house.
What I do care about is what I said earlier.
Let us all bid welcome to the Fourth Reich.
So is everyone who disagrees with you a communist?
Can Orly finish working on my teeth before she appeals?
You’re welcome.
Is there somethingposted on the Santa Ana court system website yet?
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.