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 ...
And I’m from Arkansas. So read this:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm
Cannot - Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (10 U.S.C. 888 lists the following officeholders: President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which the military member is on duty).
It’s interesting to note at this point that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for commissioned officers to use contemptuous words against the above officeholders. Commissioned officers who violate this provision can be court-martialed for a direct violation of Article 88. But, what about enlisted members and warrant officers?
DOD Directive 1344.10 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Active duty enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.
So, what about retired members? Well, DOD Directive 1344.10 only applies to active duty, so retired enlisted and warrant officers can pretty much say anything they want concerning the above office-holders. However, Article 2 of the UCMJ specifically states that retired members are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. Does that mean that retired commissioned officers are prohibited from using contemptious words against the above officeholders? Technically, yes. A retired commissioned officer who utters contemptuous words against the President or other designated officeholders is technically in violation of Article 88. However, DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. Therefore, unless that retired commissioned officer was recalled to active duty for other purposes, it would not be possible to subject them to court-martial for a violation of Article 88.
parsy, who says you need to go rinse your mouth out with soap
go fuck yourself, punk
Why do you hold some parts of the law to be applicable, but not all of it?
Doesn’t the law in our country have a sort of groundwork—that is, something fundamental from which everything else arises? Can you imagine what I might be talking about?
parsy, who can but doesn’t want to
Yeah, constitutionally speaking, Obama is the president and if you don’t like it, then you can resign your commission or asked to be relieved of duty, or go awol. And, for the umpteenth time, suspicions ain’t facts.
parsy, who says you are still jumping to conclusions
So you’re saying a member of the military is obligated by the Constitution to obey the occupant of the White House, who in turn should be allowed to completely disregard the same set of laws?
parsy, who can’t figure out what Alinsky would have advised about posting on the internet
Then you'll probably appreciate this little gem from Judge Carter's ruling. I know I did.
Spoken like a man who has served his country with honor.
“The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief”
This statement is irrelevant. If the judge is not failing to understand the general argument he must be sidestepping it intentionally.
It’s duty to obey based upon the legitimacy of the authority of who is in office, not “duty to serve based upon who is in office.”
As a citizen of this country, I suggest the judge think about the importance of this distinction. Americans are losing patience for incompetence and monkeying around with his duty.
But wait, how does he show his long form to you, in a venue that you accept? On TV, to a bunch of Republican lawmakers? Or Congress?
To Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, to prove that it is right?
Does it travel the U.S., like the Shroud of Turin, so people can look at it and make up their minds?
Who validates this?
As I wrote, we only want the truth. For my part, if he comes up with the long from BC, and the other info that has gone hidden, and it shows him to be fully eligible, and so forth, then fine. I’ll take that, and continue to work against his socialist agenda just as I’m doing, now. I don’t call that an exit strategy. I call that being proven wrong. And, that’s OK.
Of course, there will be a group of folks out and about for whom NO evidence will ever convince them of his eligibility. Much like the Truthers and the Kennedy Conspiracy theorists, etc. I’ve never counted myself among their ranks. This whole smelly affair with 0bama’s hidden history, though, has made me a ‘Birther’. But, if I’m wrong, I’ll own up to it and move ahead.
Either way, this issue deserves a full and complete hearing and final resolution. It is a fundamental Constitutional issue and the people deserve to hear the truth.
I am glad to hear that and I suspect he is going to have to do something prior to the next election or he is going to lose votes.
The problem with this is that you can’t go to court with “Your honor, we just don’t trust this dude and think he’s hiding something” as your case. Thats Salem Witch Trial stuff.
parsy, who tries to be fair and balanced and is unjustly assailed by critics who call him names and hurt his feelings on a regular basis
“Does it travel the U.S., like the Shroud of Turin, so people can look at it and make up their minds?”
Hilarious!!!
parsy, who is ROTFLMAO!
I’m OK with the legal system, for the most part. The process of discovery, depositions, testimony and evidence, etc., all work to provide the parties to the action the opportunity to challenge, prove or disprove the allegations.
I don’t need to see the BC for any reason other than simple curiosity. I’m quite OK with the lawyers and the courts, through expert witnesses and such, getting to the bottom of the issues in this case. To date, though, there hasn’t been a judge willing to allow any of the cases to proceed to hearing on the merits. All of them have been dismissed, mostly for lack of standing.
Hope that answers your questions. But...Shroud of Turin? That may not be a good analogy given the continued debate over its authenticity. Some folks are accepting of this relic as is offered. Some folks are skeptical still. And, others have become downright ‘Shrouders’...
One way to preclude these kinds of questions, going forward, is for Local and State Election boards to require (by law, if necessary) confirmation, validation and verification of eligibility as part of every candidate filing. Many years ago, when I ran for public office, at the local level, I merely had to declare myself eligible for the office as part of the filing. There was no requirement that I prove my eligibility.
Ideally, every state would require verification, but I think if a dozen or so of the larger states could get to this point, then these types of questions could be avoided.
And, I rather imagine that you are a bit more thick skinned than your ‘hurt feelings’ comment might lead some to believe.
I suspect such will happen in 2010 and 2012 elections. If Obama wants to play hardball, he will just give then the Hawaiian COLB and tell them to stuff it! It is prima facie evidence.
parsy, who maybe has a thicker hide than he lets on
Maybe that's why so many are insisting that we use the British "natural born subject" definition, rather than the "Law of Nations" natural born citizen one?
To whom did he present the "several different versions" of this VALID DOCUMENT?
Hint, an image on the internet and some other images, ostensibly photos taken by some sweetheart Annenberg Buddies, is not a "VALID DOCUMENT.
No one is asking for anyone to be hauled off to the Gulag, or even declared to be an ineligible usurper, based merely on Suspicions. They are asking, based on those suspicions, for the chance to examine the relevent documents, and present the relevant arguments, based on those documents, and then depending on the outcome of all that, having the usurper, if that is what he is proven to be, removed and hauled off to the Gulag, The latter only after a trial for fraud.
How about a judge and a jury, as these things are usually handled?
It's not about liking him, it's about his eligibility to the Office. That eligibility that is specified in the Constitution that members of the Military swear to support and defend, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The oath is to the Constitution, not to the occupant of the Oval Office. Even the enlisted oath refers to obeying the orders of the President, not some long legged Mack Daddy usurper who is not eligible under the requirements set forth in the Constitution, if that is what he turns out to be.
We also need a Supreme Court opinion on the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen". If as I have come to conclude, it means born of citizen parents, on the soil or in the service of the country, then we really don't need to see any birth certificate, except to prove who his Father was, although he himself has written that his father was not a citizen, and if that is indeed true, then he's not a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where he was born, how old his mother was, or much of anything else. It may not even matter if his father was legally married to his mother, since his father aknowledged paternity in the divorce papers.
Constitutionally speaking, he must be eligible to be President. Not eligible, meaning not 35 or over, not 14 years a resident of the US, OR (inclusive OR) not a natural born citizen.
No court has yet ruled on the eligibility question. All cases have been dismissed do to lack of standing or other such "technical" matters having nothing to do with any finding of fact.
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.