Posted on 10/29/2009 3:46:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.
The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.
A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping.
Bob Bauer also happens to be Mr. Anita Dunn.
Cozy, in’n’it?
Are all our judges bought off now?
“”Bob Bauer also happens to be Mr. Anita Dunn.
Cozy, in’n’it?””
Cozy and incestuous!
So, this ordeal is finally over. Birthers and anti-birthers, Now, can’t we all just get along?
parsy, who says birthers should let this end
I find it curious that the judge’s ruling cites unadmitted evidence - the picture of the disputed COLB.
I also find it disheartening that a socialist democrat can get elected to the presidency, and be certified the winner by a predominantly democrat congress, without having answered the fundamental question of whether he is qualified or not - and there appears to be no way to force things to a reckoning.
BTW - No, we can’t all get along. Obozo has declared war on truth and conservatives. Haven’t you heard?
WTF
Let’s play a hypothetical. Play along with me on this one.
A President and Vice President are killed. In haste, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swears in the Speaker of the House as President.
After the swearing in, it is learned that the Chief Justice didn’t ask the age of the Speaker of the House, and just assumed that they were old enough per the Constitution. He just assumed and didn’t know that the new President was NOT qualified due to age.
Now the newly sworn in President CLAIMS that they are old enough, but refuses to release their birth certificate to the public.
Just who has legal authority for review after the Speaker of the House has been sworn in as President? According to this ruling, it isn’t the judicial branch. Because no crime has been committed, the President can’t be impeached, so it isn’t the legislative branch (and because the Speaker of the House is from the majority party, that party controls the House as well). The President is chief executive over the executive branch so they wouldn’t out themselves.
So I ask again, who would have legal authority?
I certainly don’t get it.
The proper place for “suspicions” is before and during an election NOT in a court AFTER the election. So by all means, put up signs, send secret agents to Kenya and Obama’s kindergarten. Who, maybe you are all right and he was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I wish you the best of luck.
I would also suggest that you find better legal representation than Orly. And, if you make enough of a dent into his percentage next election, he may bring out the long form. Be prepared to do a Roseanne Roseannadanna. Have a good birther exit-strategy.
parsy, the strategic genius
This is really sad. There are just too many reasons this should have gone forward.
Count on it.
So much for judicial independence and courage.
This should be the focus of the next round of tea parties. The Kenyan Usurper cannot be allowed to illegally remain in power and illegally RAISE TAXES on real Americans.
In other words, your stance is “they got away with it”.
The pre-election cases were dismissed because of the injury being conjectural. The post-election/pre-inauguration cases were insufficient because he hadn’t been sworn in. And the post-inauguration cases were moot because he’d been sworn in.
I would suggest that you misunderstand the real nature of all of these outcomes - regardless of your opinion of one or more lawyers on the cases. We the people are obviously no longer citizens - but are only subjects.
And you’re happy about it.
Mortman, who recognizes fecal matter when he sees it.
I find it curious that the judge’s ruling cites unadmitted evidence - the picture of the disputed COLB.
***Interesting. I’ll need to bump that remark for later checking. As for your other comment, I also find it disheartening but I don’t know what to do about it.
I’m realistic about it. If Obama presents a COLB which says on its face that it is “prima facie” evidence of birth in Hawaii on a certain date, there really needs to be something pretty significant in the way of evidence to overcome it.
You birthers may get what you want if come 2011 or 2012 Obama thinks he is behind. Then you may get the long form and you guys need to have some exit strategy besides more suspicions. You guys will have 50 states in which you can seek injunctive relief prior to the election.
parsy, who sneers at dangers, laughs at peril, and goes tee hee hee in the face of death and disaster
You keep being realistically happy, FRiend.
Parsy, why do we need “a good birther exit-strategy.” ? If he shows the original long form BC, and it supports the contention that he was born in the US, then fine...he’s the prez. We don’t need an exit strategy. We need the truth.
Do we agree with his policies? Nope.
Do we agree with his socialist agenda? Nope.
Do we agree with his profligate spending? Nope.
Do we think he should be booted out of the WH? Yep.
The eligibility issue was raised during the campaign, and was never adequately addressed (in the minds of many). The questions remain, and still go unanswered. We want to know the truth about the man in charge. That’s all.
The judge himself said in today's ruling: "(Taitz') argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep, counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court."
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.