Posted on 02/06/2013 3:53:52 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Kathleen O’Leary, Presiding Judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal reinstated the Appeal Taitz v Obama et al filed by the candidate for the U.S. Senate Attorney Orly Taitz.
Appeal at hand involves Senator Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
From the link: "In his latest zany attempt to discredit President Obama's legitimacy to hold office, D.C.'s favorite disbarred lawyer/marijuana activist/crackpot presidential candidate/birther Montgomery Blair Sibley is attempting a new legal strategy: Using defendants and convicts of a 2009 federal anti-fraud law to file court motions to protest their charges because law was signed by someone Sibley believes to not be worthy of serving as president.
Never good when they go all Alinsky on you in the first sentence. Notice how Freed uses the term "worthy" instead of "eligible" in order to put a nice racist spin on things.
She'll probably have even less by 2016.
Thanks for posting this (and trying to out the troll on the other thread), CCPS.
Alright, all you thieving suck-ups out there who got croney-money from the Ole-bomber...give it back.
(a) This is not a federal court case. This is a state court case by Orly Taitz trying to get Obama (and Feinstein) off the California ballot. Since the Senate has already seated Feinstein and the Congress has already accepted California's electoral votes, the case is moot even if Orly gets the appeal reinstated.
(b) Even if a federal court found Obama to be ineligible, the laws he signed and the appointments he made would still stand. Google "de facto officer doctrine."
Back to the drawing board...
So then who would be President? McCain/Palin? Romney/Ryan? Boner?.........(shudder) Pelosi?
Can you imagine how funny it would be if prisons started to let people walk because Obama refused to show his documents? How embarrassing it would be? It's the natural progression of lawlessness. I would love to see a judge with the nuts to start dismissing all these cases! It should be no big deal for a president to show his documents. If im the Judge, they walk if they cant get the documents.
Thanks for the ping.
Continuing to pray.
Miracles still happen.
Yes, it is a state case, but if it were to be successful, California would doubtless appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. When a state supreme court decision of ineligibility for the office of the governor ocurred, the governor’s acts were voided. despite the doctrine. In this instance, the U.S. Supreme Court may indeed invoke the de facto doctrine, but due to other peculiarities invovlving the fraud involved by the conspiracy and culpabioity of the Democrat Party, the Supreme Court may well find it necessary to treat this as an illegal government as occurred with the Confederate States of America and the voiding of its acts due to lack of authority. Although unlikely to proceed to a conclusion, history will be made, jurisprudence and otherwise, in any event.
If for nothing else, for posterity.
Successful in what? It is a state case asking California ballot officials to take Obama (and Feinstein!) off the November 2012 California ballot. That election already happened, so the court cannot do anything for Orly even if she won, making the case moot.
And aside from all of that, that the case was bounced from the trial court because Orly never bothered to serve the defendants with process, meaning the lawsuit never started.
If Orly Taitz were being paid by Obama to set bad precedents for any eligibility challenges, what would she do differently from what she is doing?
Indeed.
"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."
http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt
Barry, has had ALL the appearance of being an intruder or usurper since the begining, and even before (a key point).
It is only for the good of the country that I hope she has debilitating health problems very soon to prevent her from any further public office.
It’s for her good too; she’ll rack up less bad karma that way. As it is, she has a very dark future ahead. No need to pile on more.
*shrug* As bad as she is, 10 years of Hillary!™ can scarce be worse than 4 more years of Obama.
Complicating the issue, there is also an old English precedeent where the court found that the usurper’s authority continued after being deposed in a case asserting the usurper’s law qwas the law of the land until supplanted by the successor, so the decision against the defendant stood. Sorry, but I don’t immediately recall thename of the case or the particulars.
naturally, the lawyers will sow as much confusion and doubt as possible on any of these doctrines and cases.
Thanks for the details in this link you provided.
De Facto Officer Law & Legal DefinitionThe following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. “An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:
First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;
Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such”. [Jersey City v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]
It was known to the public, by many, prior to him actually usurping the office, that he was not eligible as he is not a "natural born Citizen."
In fact, he informed the world (wide web) that he was born with British citizenship, and thus foreign allegiance owed [inheriting his foreign fathers foreign citizenship by birthright].
Problem is, nobody in a position of power to do anything about it at the time gave a damn. They remain terrified of the issue to this day.
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.