Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
www.wnd.com...

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief."

(Story continues at link)

Damm!!!

Now...is everybody happy?!?



[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

HOLD IT!!!! Something is hinky here...

The DOJ filed a motion in this case LAST FRIDAY. Strangely, in their motion they cite Oct 5th as the trial date, yet Judge carter had not set a trial date YET.

www.politico.com...

Nothing will be decided about if this case proceeds, if discovery is granted, etc until Oct 5th, so once again, it's just a NOTHINGBURGER

Wow, am I being to cynical in thinking that nothing will come of this? It just seems impossible to get some of that transparency I have heard so much about, but am yet to see.

-E-

In the article...

"The true and correct photocopy of the birth certificate obtained is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A," the declaration reads. "I declare, certify, verify, state and affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true and correct."

Smith's affidavit, which includes a copy of the certificate, has been filed Carter, whose works in the Central District of California.

In his filing, Smith declares that he traveled to Kenya in February and paid off a military officer in order to obtain a copy of the birth certificate from Coast General Hospital in Mombasa. The declaration also states that the hospital administrator signed and sealed the copy, which indicates Obama's birth in Africa on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m.

Hmmm...

Reminds me of a Country song...

"...Who's cheatin' who...who's bein' true...and who don't even care anymore..."

...Alan Jackson?...(and who's car is parked next door?)



And...just in from Redhatty!!!

A blow by blow account!!!!

Latest OBAMANations -- Day 232
www.theobamafile.com...

[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

This is crazy, we will see what happens though, at least this is getting somewhere I doubt it will get any more traction though.

I hope it does, get this situation cleared up once and for all, but this could be more distractions, the question is lets say hypothetically that Obama is not a citizen what is the whole Dem congress going to do?

Found at www.therightsideoflife.com..., but originally from comments on Orly Taitz's site

This is from Devvy Kidd….found at Dr. Taitz website….

Monday, September 7, 2009 5:48 AM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
“Devvy Kidd”

View contact details
To:
undisclosed-recipients

Now, that’s interesting.

Her case has a hearing tomorrow while Obama/Soetoro speaks to the kiddies.

Why did DOJ wait until the 11th hour this past Friday to file their motion when they have known about this hearing for some time? They file on Friday, today is a holiday and Orly’s hearing is tomorrow.

DOJ says that none of the plaintiffs who were candidates had any chance of winning the election anyway, so its okay to leave a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot and then in office. So what if Obama/Soetorowas born with dual citizenship and can never be eligible?

And, of course, on page 14 of the fed’s motion (link in the article) we go back to the issue of standing.

According to the courts so far, no one on this earth has standing when it comes to challenging the constitutional eligibility of The One, his holiness, Obama/Soetoro.

www.politico.com...

“The Justice Departmentis urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers’ attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to be president.”

Rest at link

I go back to an Oct. 29, 2008 column Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote regarding standing. This is just an excerpt; read the rest at link

www.newswithviews.com...

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitutionmandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face

Credit to Edwin Vieira who is widely quoted above

[edit on 9/8/09 by redhatty]

And more from the "Almighty" Redhatty!!!

...Seem Cali has "exemptions" on certain clauses... :shk:

DOJ Last Minute Demands to Judge Carter
birthers.org...

Tomorrow we will see what happens with Dr. Taitz’s latest case before Judge David Carter in the US District Court of California.

As a last minute surprise, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss, which seeks to dismiss this action on various grounds, starting with,

The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process.

To back up this point in their object the DOJ references the Federalist Papers No. 68.

As footnote the DOJ has is as follows,

Explaining this provision of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton stated that: “the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.” [emphasis added]. See Federalist Papers, No. 68.

This would have been a great point except that California is one state of 27 states that PROHIBITS the electors from choosing a “fit” candidate for President.

I have a funny feeling that cases such as these will continue to do a slow wind through the courts all throughout the Obama Presidency as just a polite reminder from the Powers that Be to mind his leash.

Many civil and even criminal lawsuits where the defendant is not behind bars or is and waives his or her right to a speedy trial can and do in fact drag on for more than 4 years.

If there was truly any urgency favoring the people and the plaintiffs which cleary their isn't, one of these cases would have already been heard.

I wouldn't get my hopes up, but there is always the chance he will slip his leash on something and they will pull to plug and let one of these proceed to a full blown trial.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Very well...noted Sir...

Being as TPTB are well versed in "legalese"...I suspect the same outcome as you...

I'm reminded of..."What a tangled web we weave...when we practice to deceive..."

:shk:



[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Very well...noted Sir...

Being as TPTB are well versed in "legalese"...I suspect the same outcome as you...

I'm reminded of..."What a tangled web we weave...when we practice to deceive..."

:shk:



[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

It's important to remember as always Rome effectively practices divide and conquer warfare by always maintaining the divisions and fanning the things that lead to divisions amongst the populace my good dear Borgian friend.

This is a controversy they will keep a live for many reasons.

Ultimately like 9-11, the Courts really don't intervene or intervene quickly on the most crucial matters.

Let us not forget there is also money to be made off of this controversy not just for lawyers, but for authors, and political pundits and egads conspiracy theorists!

Long live the Birth Certificate Issue! Hail Caesar!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It seems Sir, a confluent stream of events and even over-lapping events are at play in this "Roman Era"...(which you know well...this is for the uninformed...)

US continues to be in a permanent state of national emergency since March 9, 1933, and possibly as far back as the Civil War
--Senate report 93-549 (1973)

On April 15, 1861,

President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): "I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress."

Caesar (President) is now in full control even over the Senate (Congress).

A Presidential dictatorship has been imposed on U.S. citizens. The sad thing is, "Most American people do not realize it yet."

The corporate government created in 1871 will continue to exist as long as:

"state of war" or "emergency" exists (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, War on Iraq, etc.),

the President does not terminate "martial" or "emergency" powers by Executive Order or decree, or

the people do not resist submission and terminate by restoring lawful civil courts, processes and procedures under authority of the "inherent political powers" of the people.

---------------------------

The original Thirteenth Amendment (no title of nobility), approved by 13 of the 17 states March 12, 1819 and thereby ratified, is the last proper draft of a de jure Amendment but is not recognized by the corporate (de facto) UNITED STATES.

The original 13th Amendment prohibits "Esquires" (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office.

The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure.

I really love these facts...I suggest others delve into our "real" history... :shk:

"The Truth as I see it."
www.usavsus.info...

[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Per usual as has been going on for almost 150 years now our government is simply a corporate algemation installed by powerful monied interests to tax our labors and output in every conceivable way for their own economic gain.

Not only has the good ship Obama not repealled the Patriot or FISA Acts but is working to further limit our constitutional freedoms night and day.

The 'Change' as always where the corporate body politic is concerned is change for the worse, and more of the same old, same old.

America has not been governed by it's constitution or a legally sat congress since 1861.

Ah the good old days!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well...you know, better than most, where the original break occurred...

This is just our "collective" realization that...

"Huh..this applies to us too???"

The only difference is...they're smarter now...no visable arm-band for the masses...could RFID be the 21st century equal?

Hail Caesar !!!

:shk:

[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Well...you know, better than most, where the original break occurred...

This is just our "collective" realization that...

"Huh..this applies to us too???"

The only difference is...they're smarter now...no visable arm-band for the masses...could RFID be the 21st century equal?

Hail Caesar !!!

:shk:

[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

True story my Borgian friend, a few months back I recieved a request for my services from a would be new client who had been referred to me.

Something struck me as odd about the corporations name so I did a little research and as usual my sixth sense proved correct.

It turned out the company was the leading inventor, marketer and purveyor of RFID solutions.

The company only has two offices, one where I live in Miami, and their Head Quarters in Rome, dum da dum dum, da dum dum dum.

I turned down their request for my services and politely explained why.
They were a bit dismayed and they appealed of course to my greedy nature, but I still turned them down.

Will Caesar be displeased? I think not! I of course sacrificed a goat to Jupiter just to play it safe!

Hail Caesar.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
OMG!!!

Only a Goat for turning down a "Wanna-be-Global Conglomerate"???

No wonder they were appaled!!!

Now...how do 27 states have "loop-holes" to allow the anomalies of "non-citizen" that otherwise conforms with no electoral vote???

I'm at a loss here ...

reply to post by Hx3_1963


The elector process has long been a stable of Rome. You let the plebes pretend that they have a say in things but you don't actually let them have a say in things, you just let them elect, electors and not cantidates.

Of course they don't get to elect the electors, since they are all political appointees, but the plebes think that they are electing the electors that elect the cantidates and that's what really matters.

Person: Actors wearing masks & straw man

These plebes don't belong to the writers guilde!

It was a fine goat by the way, sturdy and strong. I knew Saturn would be pleased because most of the time all that ever get's sacrficed to him anymore is Sheeple!

Hail Caesar!

It HAD to be Barak. Nobody would've voted for Jay-Z.
You'll see....

All this just to get Obama to show his long form birth certificate?

At the rate this case is moving, Obama's term will be over by the time the court allows discovery of that document. Maybe that's the idea.

It's interesting to see that it may not be a dead issue though.

Here's the orders www.scribd.com...

The Scheduling Order www.scribd.com...

That one is interesting, it's calling for both sides to proceed with discovery BEFORE the Judge has to officially order it

From Jeff Schwilk, Founder
www.SanDiegoMinutemen.com

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now!

I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.

Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama’s request for dismissal today, instead setting a hearing date for Oct. 5, since Obama’s attorneys had just filed the motion on Friday. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. I guess Obama would prefer a “kangaroo court” instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama’s motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).

The judge, who is a former U.S. Marine, repeated several times that this is a very serious case which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said Obama must prove his eligibility to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama’s attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.

Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution!!! The truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility will be known fairly soon – Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories today. She was fearless!

GiveUsLiberty blog reports:

Orly Taitz asked special permission to depose Lucas Smith on the spot. The defense argued Plaintiff had sprung an ambush witness and they hadn’t been allowed to prepare deposition questions.

Carter ruled against immediate deposition of Smith. Orly Taitz argued strenuously for the deposition stating Smith feared for his life. Taitz also asked for Witness Protection for Smith. I’m not clear where that stands.

Taitz asked for an earlier trial date sooner than 1/26/10 giving her reasons as death threats against herself and witnesses, the likelihood of more evidence disappearing, and the possibility of witnesses being killed before they can testify.

Gary is outside the courthouse interviewing participants so hopefully we’ll have some more comments.

Gary will be writing his own take on the days events about 5 hours from now.

"live" blogging from earlier today

Related. Although this is not the case resulting from the "new" Kenya BC...I suspect this case will wind up the same. Her approach seems to be "Throw it against the wall and see what sticks"

Orly Taitz gets laughed out of court

"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

And in a scorching order dismissing the suit, United States District Judge Clay Land, a Bush appointee, let her know all about them. He also threatened her with sanctions if she files any more "similarly frivolous ... actions in this Court."

Link



[edit on 17-9-2009 by kinda kurious]