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 ...
Actually not, and that is part of what puzzles me about the ruling.
A man who has served with honor as an officer understands the need to support and defend the Constitution, even if he disagrees with the need in this case. He does not impugn the honor or motives of others trying to do just that. He may tell them they are wrong, or don't have a case, but he respects their motives.
Everything I've read about or by Judge Carter that predates this case being filed in his court, indicates that he is just such a man. And then THIS comes from his court? Doesn't seem right.
Actually it normally doesn't take much in the way of "suspicion" to get to discovery in a civil trial. I asked my lawyer daughter and her lawyer husband about that on Saturday. That was pretty much their answer. You get to discovery if the facts you seek would support your case if they are what you suspect they are and have some indication that they are.
The process is analogous to getting a search warrent in a criminal case. All you need is reasonable suspiccion that a crime has been committed and some reason to believe evidence of it, or the likely perpetrator can be found at the place to be searched.
The bar has been raised *much* higher for these cases.
OK, but if it ever does get to a court case, be it even the Supreme Court, and he shows it and it turns out to be valid, will you accept it?
I’m betting a lot of people on this forum still won’t.
And then there will be all these dark pronouncements that Justice Scalia (JUSTICE SCALIA!!) is in the tank, or that he doesn’t know a damn thing about the law, etc.
So let’s say Donofrio, is able to appeal it up to the Supremes, which could definitely happen, and they decide to hear it (which they probably won’t). Would you accept that their ruling, no matter what?
I’m serious!
There is the legal precedent, which is rock solid, as evidenced by the fact that every case has been and will continue to be dismissed for standing, justicability, etc.
But what is becoming more and more fascinating to me about this case is the belief. The belief that no matter what evidence is or is not presented, that people’s opinions will not change, that Jesus himself could show up with the Long Form, and you would have people saying “I don’t know, there was something fishy about his beard...those sandals seemed kinda weird...”
If I’m wrong, I’ll admit I F’d up and feel embarrassed. Facts are facts, until something changes, and more knowledge comes out.
But I can just see the day that the Long Form comes out (if it ever does), and if it’s valid, that a new Mobius Strip of dark and complex theories gets constructed about how deep the conspiracy goes, and how that’s a forgery as well, etc., etc.
Conspiracy can turn into religion if you buy into it enough. It’s just worrisome that there are enough people who will not accept any other outcome than the one they have in their minds.
To be honest - I couldn’t tell you which is which.
I just know that the ruling elite are no longer accountable to we, the people.
And for all intents and purposes he has proved his eligibility. He got elected. You just don’t trust him and that is your right as an American, heck as a person. But it don’t translate very well into a cognizable lawsuit. What is so hard to understand about that-—that you don’t get to go to court in America over some suspicions that somebody has pulled a fast one?????
parsy, who says, geesh, you guys are up and at it early and must have forgotten to “fall back”
“You get to discovery if the facts you seek would support your case..”
That’s the point. You ain’t got a case! To make a Complaint, you have to allege FACTS, not suspicions. Then if you have stated a valid claim, have standing, and the court has jurisdiction (subject matter and personal), THEN you get discovery. Ask your daughter and her husband.
parsy, who is wondering why you want to turn the legal system upside down?
British Common law, born in the country, even of aliens == Natural Born Subject. With additional proviso that if born outside the country of a Subject father, also natural born suject. (Thus BHO is a Natural born British Subject) Also exemptions if the parents are not in the Sovereign's allegiance, such as foreign *visitors* as opposed to alien residents and of course foreign diplomats and military.
"Law of Nations": Born of citizens in the to country, with some exemptions "in the country" for children of citizens born while the parents are outside the country but in its service, such as diplomats and military).
The Common law exemptions "exclude" while the "Law of Nations" ones include.
Elections cannot overturn Constitutional requirements.
You just don’t trust him
I didn't trust Clinto either, but I had no indication he was not eligible per Art. II section 1. Even if I didn't know for certain if his "birth father" was really his biological uncle. That wouldn't have mattered since both were US Citizens.
Allege facts? How are alleged facts different than suspicions? They are only waiting to be confirmed or disproved by information produced during discovery. Ask your daughter and her husband.
I did. You only have to allege facts that if proved would support your case. Those allegations have to have some reasonable support. Even just and affidavit is enough. Even hearsay is enough. Getting to discovery does not require the same level of proof as required at trial. You still have to prove both your injury.
I'm wondering why Parsy wishes to raise the bar so much higher for this particular defendant?
Well you don't show evidence at the Supreme Court, but yes, I'd accept a long form provided by and authenticated by the Hawaii Department of Health. Not from Obama, directly from the state of Hawaii, with affidavit attesting to it's authenticity.
But I wouldn't accept the facts upon in advance without knowing what is in the parts that are not reflected on the CoLB, such as information provider, (usually the parent), witness, usually the doctor or nurse-midwife and (if present) the hospital registrar) and their signatures. Then I'd want to cross check those with the names and signatures from the historical record.
Even that would only prove US Birth, and who his parents were. If it proves that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, born in Kenya, then I'd need to see proof, such as a naturalization certificate, of his father's US citizenship prior to Junior's birth or alernately I'd except the plaintiffs to request evidence that he was not a citizen such as visa or entry documentation, from 1959 when BHO Sr came to Hawaii on a student visa, and agin around '71 when he returned for a meeting with his old college buddies, probably on a tourist visa.
Of course, if it shows someone else as the father, then we'd need some proof of his citizenship, like a birth certificate from Illinois or Nebraska or wherever. But I don't think it will, since the divorce decree indicates BHO II is the "child of the parties".
Well you don't show evidence at the Supreme Court, but yes, I'd accept a long form provided by and authenticated by the Hawaii Department of Health. Not from Obama, directly from the state of Hawaii, with affidavit attesting to it's authenticity.
But I wouldn't accept the facts upon in advance without knowing what is in the parts that are not reflected on the CoLB, such as information provider, (usually the parent), witness, usually the doctor or nurse-midwife and (if present) the hospital registrar) and their signatures. Then I'd want to cross check those with the names and signatures from the historical record.
Even that would only prove US Birth, and who his parents were. If it proves that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, born in Kenya, then I'd need to see proof, such as a naturalization certificate, of his father's US citizenship prior to Junior's birth or alernately I'd except the plaintiffs to request evidence that he was not a citizen such as visa or entry documentation, from 1959 when BHO Sr came to Hawaii on a student visa, and agin around '71 when he returned for a meeting with his old college buddies, probably on a tourist visa.
Of course, if it shows someone else as the father, then we'd need some proof of his citizenship, like a birth certificate from Illinois or Nebraska or wherever. But I don't think it will, since the divorce decree indicates BHO II is the "child of the parties".
Well you don't show evidence at the Supreme Court, but yes, I'd accept a long form provided by and authenticated by the Hawaii Department of Health. Not from Obama, directly from the state of Hawaii, with affidavit attesting to it's authenticity.
But I wouldn't accept the facts upon in advance without knowing what is in the parts that are not reflected on the CoLB, such as information provider, (usually the parent), witness, usually the doctor or nurse-midwife and (if present) the hospital registrar) and their signatures. Then I'd want to cross check those with the names and signatures from the historical record.
Even that would only prove US Birth, and who his parents were. If it proves that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, born in Kenya, then I'd need to see proof, such as a naturalization certificate, of his father's US citizenship prior to Junior's birth or alernately I'd except the plaintiffs to request evidence that he was not a citizen such as visa or entry documentation, from 1959 when BHO Sr came to Hawaii on a student visa, and agin around '71 when he returned for a meeting with his old college buddies, probably on a tourist visa.
Of course, if it shows someone else as the father, then we'd need some proof of his citizenship, like a birth certificate from Illinois or Nebraska or wherever. But I don't think it will, since the divorce decree indicates BHO II is the "child of the parties".
Well you don't show evidence at the Supreme Court, but yes, I'd accept a long form provided by and authenticated by the Hawaii Department of Health. Not from Obama, directly from the state of Hawaii, with affidavit attesting to it's authenticity.
But I wouldn't accept the facts upon in advance without knowing what is in the parts that are not reflected on the CoLB, such as information provider, (usually the parent), witness, usually the doctor or nurse-midwife and (if present) the hospital registrar) and their signatures. Then I'd want to cross check those with the names and signatures from the historical record.
Even that would only prove US Birth, and who his parents were. If it proves that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, born in Kenya, then I'd need to see proof, such as a naturalization certificate, of his father's US citizenship prior to Junior's birth or alernately I'd except the plaintiffs to request evidence that he was not a citizen such as visa or entry documentation, from 1959 when BHO Sr came to Hawaii on a student visa, and again around '71 when he returned for a meeting with his old college buddies, probably on a tourist visa.
Of course, if it shows someone else as the father, then we'd need some proof of his citizenship, like a birth certificate from Illinois or Nebraska or wherever. But I don't think it will, since the divorce decree indicates BHO II is the "child of the parties".
Sorry about that.
The only proof of birth that Barack Obama needs to show is the state of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.
Those who demand more can vote for his opponent in 2012.
The only information that the Constitution requires in Article 2 is birth in the US and Age 35. That information is on the Hawaii COLB and has been verified by the Director the Hawaii Department of Health and the Registrar of Vital Records.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama WAS BORN IN HAWAII and is a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...”
Anyone wanting to see the long form, original, vault copy Certificate of Live Birth should put pressure on the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark Bennett who has the statuatory authority to subpoena the original vital record without Barack Obama’s permission under confidentiality of vital records laws.
Only if "natural born citizen" and "born in the US" are the same thing. It's never been adjudicated, and I among millions, maintain that they are not.
Adjudicating such disputes is why we have a Judicial branch. But if the judicial branch won't allow cases to progress to the stage of adjudication of the dispute, we're sort of screwed, aren't we?
Only if “natural born citizen” and “born in the US” are the same thing. It’s never been adjudicated, and I among millions, maintain that they are not.
Adjudicating such disputes is why we have a Judicial branch. But if the judicial branch won’t allow cases to progress to the stage of adjudication of the dispute, we’re sort of screwed, aren’t we?
Seven attempts to challenge Obama’s eligibility have reached conferences at the Supreme Court thus far: Berg v Obama, Donofrio v Wells, Craig v US, Herbert v Obama et. al., Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes,and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. None have been granted “cert” (4 justices agreeing to hear a case before the full court).
Wow, I’ve never seen that! Congrats! ;)
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.