Posted on 01/11/2010 12:47:03 PM PST by Red Steel
It is my best guess that Obama’s attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over… far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.
Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:
Orly has pointed out that Judge Carter promised to hear the case on its merits. The Justice Department defending Obama conned the Judge into dismissing and used the excuse of “jurisdiction” claiming only Quo Warranto can be brought in Washington DC.
Orly said, “fine, let’s move the case.” She is asking Judge Carter to move the case to Judge Lamberth’s court in DC. This would serve to best expedite the case, including discovery.
Orly is making sure that Judge Carter is aware of the fact that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been stalling for many months now. An original Quo Warranto was filed in Judge Taylor’s Washington DC court (he has since retired.. couldn’t stand the heat in my opinion).. that was back in March, 2009. The Justice Department has done everyting in its power to stall, hide, ignore the case..
Orly is telling the Judge that the longer he waits to allow “we the people” to seek justice in court the more damage that Obama does to our Country. The Justice Department is basically defending a Usuper in office.. the entire system appears to be corrupt.. of course, Eric Holder is simply a puppet for Obama.
We hope and pray that Judge Carter allows this case to be transferred.. Obama will have a much tougher time getting the case dismissed in Washington DC if Carter allows the transfer.. Any kind of ruling against Obama will set a precedent that could literally force the Court into action.
The State of Hawaii, and most especially not the Good Doctor, has no authority to declare anyone a "natural born citizen", because that determination takes more information than they have in their records. The long form BC only has parent's birth place, not their citizenship.
As it stands now, the public has its information. If the court wants it, according to its evidence requirements -- they can order it.
That is one of the points, they obviously DON'T want it. They don't want to look at any evidence, and AFAIK, haven't.
And I have no doubt, that if it were to ever come to a point where any court would order a certified copy for the court, they would also do that, too, providing that information to the court showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.
They will need to provide the actual document, that's the only way that any plaintiff could challenge it's legitimacy. If they only provide selected information, there is no way the information can be verified. But if they provide the whole thing, hospital records can be checked, the doctor can be reasearched to see if that doctor actually practiced in that hospital at that time. Or if no doctor is shown, and the birth is recorded as being "at home", or some other place not a Hawaiian hospital, that's a horse of a different color, but still might leave some room for verification and/or rebuttal.
They still did not certify the candidates, only the count. The fact that no one objected does not mean they approved or certified. IIRC the rules allow for an objection *to the count* not to the candidate. Here is the relevant section of the law 3 USC 15:
said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
So, they cannot oject to the candidate, only to the electoral votes themselves.
No one spoke up...
The President of the Senate, that is VP Cheney, did not ask for objections as the law requires, which would have been the point where objections would be entered.
Unless you have a link to such a certification of eligibility, my point stands: they certified the count, not the eligibilty of the candidate.
Could be, then make it former co-counsels, and he still *was* mixed up Berg.
obumpa
It’s demented. Everyone has had it with that b*tch and I use that term whether the nut job is make or female. A troll is a troll is a troll and ST is one.
Never said they weren't. But they not "Natural Born Citizens".
I have a terrible feeling that situation of an anchor baby is where the NBC clause will finally be adjudicated...but then again maybe not even then, if the anchor baby is a 'rat, which given the demographics of the parties, is fairly likely... unless she is Czech, Russian, or other eastern Europena anchor baby. :)
The 14th amendment most certainly was in effect in '61, and for almost 100 years before that.
But the 14th amendment was not about natural born citizenship, but rather about ensuring that slaves and their children were citizens. It's purpose was to overturn the "Dred Scott" decision, at least most of it, while the 13th amendment overturned other parts of it.
The key words of the 14th that changed existing law were "All persons", prior to that, "some persons" were not considered citizens even if all their great grandparents were born in one or another of the sovereign states.
You are confusing or deliberately confounding. "naturalized" with "not natural born". They are not the same thing.
One counter example that all can understand, are children born overseas of US parents, one or two. They are citizens by statute law, not natural law, or by the 14th amendment's terms. Thus they are not "natural born citizens". If they were, no statute would be necessary to make them citizens.
The mods told her to stay away from birther threads several months ago, now she’s back even worse than before.
You know what they say about assumptions.
I've seen nothing to indicate that such permission was sought or granted. After all if he'd going to grant permission for some of the information to be released, why not all of it?
I know, what is he or she doing back here? ST is clearly deranged.
You said.... LOL LOL LOL
I said .....LOL LOL LOL
You said... LOL LOL LOL
and the post where she wished there would be a horrible terrorist attack and Americans killed just to make the Dems look bad. Clearly ST is demented.
And the result of that is at 292!!!
Why be upset you are just talking to an "Individual" (?) shown at 292, and her name is "Placenta" talking from the "Word-Salad"!!!
There is no such requirement. I don't think there's even a procedure in place if someone wanted to make the gesture. Your friends might have taken the step of renouncing their other citizenship(s), but doing so or failing to has no effect on U.S. citizenship.
That's the consensus outside of Free Republic. Statements in the dicta of Supreme Court cases seem to indicate that "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" are synonymous, but there has never been a ruling directly on point.
01/12/2010 108 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: denying 105 Motion to Transfer Case. Plaintiffs now request that their quo warranto claims be transferred to the District Court of the District of Columbia. As this case has been dismissed as to all claims with prejudice, meaning that there is no longer any action pending before this Court, the Motion to Transfer is DENIED. (ade) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
Ahhh..., I see... so you're one of those "many" who didn't vote for the GOP ticket that I've heard other FReepers complaining about... LOL...
It wasn't me who was posting those threads where other FReepers were blaming those who wouldn't vote for McCain -- for allowing Obama to get in there -- like you did.
I mean, I just saw those other threads, and one again, just the other day too... LOL...
I should hook you up with that guy, as I suspect he has something good to say to you..., because you wouldn't vote for the GOP ticket ... LOL....
I know, what is he or she doing back here? ST is clearly deranged.
You said.... LOL LOL LOL
I said .....LOL LOL LOL
You said... LOL LOL LOL
Ummmm..., I don't know for sure, but it would seem to me that people reading your post might think you've just fallen off the edge... :-)
and the post where she wished there would be a horrible terrorist attack and Americans killed just to make the Dems look bad. Clearly ST is demented.
Well, I don't know for sure if you're demented or not -- but -- I can tell you lack some good reading skills and you also lack some knowledge of what the Bush Administration said, too... :-)
Let me help you out here... so we can get you "up to speed" in a hurry...
As we all know (who have been keeping up on these Islamic terrorists and what our government has been saying and doing about it) -- we've heard multiple times from various Bush Administration officials in the past that it was a certainty that Islamic terrorists would succeed in a massive attack on the United States, at one time or another (but we didn't know when...), something on the scale of 9/11 or greater.
They've let us know repeatedly that this is the case. They've said it's "not a matter of if" but only "a matter of when"... and that they will certainly succeed.
The reasoning that they gave for that is that they've said that in order for us to succeed in preventing such an attack, we have to be perfect in preventing 100% of these kinds of attacks, while all the other side has to do is succeed at "only one such attack"....
The Islamic terrorists can fail 99 times and onlyl succeed one time in this kind of attack, and that's the big one that the government is talking about.
Now, I hope I've gotten you "up to speed now" -- since you've missed that part in the past.
AND..., another thing you may have missed in the past, apparently so, are several threads here on Free Republic, where our government (in the Bush Administration) has been making plans to set up large camps and facilities for handling larger populations that will be displaced from these kinds of terrorist attacks (that they've said they are guaranteed to happen and succeed). These large camps are meant for various kinds of disasters, and not only for Islamic terrorists, but there are being planned right now (and were during the Bush Administration and they were behind schedule in getting those camps completed for rescuing large populations that would be dislocated during any such major attack like they say is coming).
And so, again, another item to "get you up to speed"... :-)
NOW..., since you're up to speed on a few details that you were missing before, let's propose a scenario for you in the attack that is coming and will succeed, as the Bush Administration has been telling us, in the past, when they were in office. I don't think Obama is saying very much about it now, though (as a side-note here).
Two scenarios here... one is that such an attack happens during a Democrat Administration, you know... the one who continually denies the dangers of such an Islamic terrorist attacks and say that the conservatives and Republicans are to blame for these things in the first place.
The other scenario is that such an attack happens during a Republican Administration...
Between the two scenarios of what is going to be happening in the future, I would prefer that such an attack happen during a Democrat Administration and not during a Republican Administration.
Can you imagine what kind of havoc that the Democrats would try to place on a Republican Administration for them not keeping us safe, when such a things happens? I can imagine it... they're pretty good at doing that.
On the other hand, if this coming attack happens during a Democrat Administration, it will force them to deal with the realities of the Islamic terrorists -- something that we need to do anyway, and in any case. The only problem is that the Democrats always block any effective action on this. With this attack that is coming, they Democrats could not block the kind of effective action we need when such a thing happens, with it being on their watch...
That scenario is the preferable one of the two...
I hope you've gotten fully up to speed now... :-)
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.