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.
If Carter can change his “closed ruling” after almost 2 months past, it is not inconceivable he could resort to ‘ex post facto, again. He did it once in his court means he could do it again.
In addition...
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.
It is possible for conservatives to disagree on whether on not Obama’s eligibility deserves attention ...but...when DOJ obfuscating, distorting, and deliberately confusing arguments are used to defend Obama, then don't be surprised when some consider who use these tactics to be TROLLS!
My favorite was Missouri. Someone submitted a bill that made it mandatory that candidates show their long form birth certificates. They withdrew the bill when it was pointed out that Missouri only issues short forms.
That's the first time I heard the results and reason why about the State of Missouri... interesting.
But, even if they amended it and had whatever was required and produced (for a birth certificate) for anything else -- legally -- why couldn't they have made that change for Missouri and required the same of all candidates there?
Now, the peculiar thing about that -- is that I've read a few posts elsewhere on Free Republic (over the months...) that have said that to get a passport that you have to have a long form birth certificate, while others said no you didn't. And if a state does not issue long form birth certificates -- does that mean that those people in that state (who were born there) cannot get U.S. passports?
Just wondering... :-)
Irrelevant. Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.
Oh come on, is she really a lawyer?
Dang close. A judge doesn't have to proceed in any civil suit case for any reason he promulgates or putsforth. In this case, the judiciary has a hot potato where they do not have the balls to face...yet.
It is possible for conservatives to disagree on whether on not Obama’s eligibility deserves attention ...but...when DOJ obfuscating, distorting, and deliberately confusing arguments are used to defend Obama, then don't be surprised when some consider who use these tactics to be TROLLS!
Ahhh...., I think you said this somewhere else, so I'll post my same answer... :-)
But....When so-called conservatives use DOJ talking points regarding Obama’s natural born status, don't be surprised when those defending the Constitution label them TROLLS!
Those talking points that you're referring to may be out there somewhere, but I don't know where they are. If I say certain things that you've heard elsewhere, it's because when I've looked at this -- it's what I come up with just thinking about it on my own and analyzing it on my own.
The statement by the State of Hawaii, of course, is not my own, but that's a matter of an official statement and a matter of record, so that's something that is very important to refer to and is valid.
I just read on another FReeper post, just a few minutes ago, that Clinton said to Kennedy that he was supporting Obama just because he is black. Now, I might come up with that same assessment, but it doesn't mean that I read it from Clinton and I decided to take "Clinton's talking points" from him and then repeat them. It's just that I figured out the same thing myself... LOL...
OK --
(a) Get rid of Oily Taitz as the poster child for the birther movement. Although her heart may be in the right place, she is clearly over-matched in the courtroom, and she really does not seem to understand the litigation process.
(b) Nearly every state, if not every state, has a very specific procedure for challenging the qualifications of candidates for office at the federal, state, and local level. In most jurisdictions, the statute of limitations begins to run at or about the time the candidate's name is placed on the ballot. The time to initiate the challenge is very short to ensure that that these disputes are litigated before the election and not after the winner is sworn into office. Even the appeals process is expedited to ensure appellate review prior to the election. Why? Because elections are expensive, and public policy dictates that we resolve "qualification disputes" before the ballots are printed, the elections are held, and winner is sworn into office. Indeed, the only challenges that are allowed after the election relate to the qualifications of the voters, the conduct of the election, and the accuracy of the count.
(c) The time is now to end the legal challenges to 0bama's qualifications with respect to the 2008 election. The focus now should be on formulating a plan to timely challenge his qualifications in several key Red States as soon as his name is placed on the ballot. The law suits should be commenced in several states in the name of an opposition candidate and/or opposition party, and not some soldier that doesn't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. The law suit would challenge Obama's qualifications to appear on the ballot on a state-by-state basis, much the way a candidate challenges the authenticity of signatures on their opponent's nominating petition or challenges the qualifications of a candidate based upon his of her residency.
She still has a license to practice law despite her critic’s efforts. Obama is still in the White House where he shouldn’t be...come on.
Irrelevant. Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.
We've got the official statement from the State of Hawaii...
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.”
If I think she is headed down a dead end road, then I'll say so.
Is that a problem for you?
I have an Illinois birth certificate that differs in no noticeable way from the Hawaiian short form, except that it says "Illinois" at the top and not "Hawaii." I used it to get a passport in California with no problem whatsoever.
Precisely! However, it IS because of his being born a British subject.
If you think you can do better than Mrs. Taitz, then I suggest you put your money where your mouth is, or get out of her way.
I think it may be as some other FReepers say, that Taitz is working for Obama.
So, that could be the reason for Obama's high court costs... he's paying for lawyers on both sides... LOL...
Thank you for sharing....and I am glad someone is continuing to pursue these cases regarding Obama’s eligibility. It is a shame that some here on FR continue to Enable Obama on this issue
That's pretty funny there. Of course the good doc from HI has the authority to declare ole' Barry a "natural-born American citizen."
/sarc
I have an Illinois birth certificate that differs in no noticeable way from the Hawaiian short form, except that it says "Illinois" at the top and not "Hawaii." I used it to get a passport in California with no problem whatsoever.
Well then..., taking your own experience and your ability to get a U.S. Passport with that short form, then I would have to say that it's "definitive"...
Thanks...
No, it's because one of his parents wasn't a US Citizen.
British law isn't the issue.
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.