Devvy’s Email Alerts: Judge Carter dismisses Orly’s case & my comments…
While I haven’t read all of Judge Carter’s ruling yet, WND has provided some of the text:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411
As regular readers of my columns know, I believe the only way to remove Obama (a usurper) is through the Quo Warranto as I wrote in my last column:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd476.htm
Please allow me to make a few comments about Carter’s ruling this morning:
“The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election,” he said.
“He warned, “Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.
“This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results,” he said.
“But he also said once Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, the question no longer was over a potentially ineligible candidate but of the removal of a sitting president.”
This again goes to who can remove a sitting president. If the individual is constitutionally ineligible (usurper), Quo Warranto. The only other option is impeachment of a legitimate president. Not the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in this case. Just my humble opinion from a thousand hours of reading the research.
Carter goes on:
“Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.”
I guess that flub turned out to be awfully convenient. Justice Roberts was so accommodating.
And, from the WND piece:
“He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution’s assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.
“Carter cited Kreep’s arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
I believe this is a gross error on Carter’s part. He cites only impeachment or the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Carter makes the leap that it doesn’t matter if the candidate was constitutionally ineligible. Just because Obama threw the dice and allegedly won (we know vote fraud played a role), therefore he is a legitimate president and removal is only available by the two aforementioned options.
Yes, there is a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether or not Obama was born with dual citizenship, which he was:
“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…”
Obama also wrote about his father, Obama, Sr. in his book, Dreams of My Father. There is no question his father’s status forever makes Obama ineligible. Not because his mother was a certain age or because he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or Dallas.
Because Obama “seized” office when not legally entitled to it, he is a usurper and that Quo Warranto federal statute is the only remedy to remove him in my humble opinion. You might disagree, but the court rulings have a certain pattern to them (1) standing and (2) jurisdiction. In the case of the Quo Warranto, if the DC Court determines the interested person’s complaint has a valid legal issue, it goes to trial by the government, not an individual. That eliminates the problem of standing and jurisdiction.
According to the WND news piece, Orly will be filing an appeal and more cases. Mario Apuzzo filed an appeal earlier this week in the Kerchner v Obama case that was recently dismissed.
One final note. Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his order. This was not covered in the WND piece.
In his motion, Section F, “Conduct Of Plaintiff’s Counsel,” Judge Carter said:
“The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.
“This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.
“Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
“Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
“While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.”
The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:
Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail
http://www.devvy.net/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/what_is_dada_mail/
–
**********
Posts Added Thru-Out The Day ~ 24/7…
NEW! -The “G” QUIK-POSTS!
MOST GyG POSTS HERE!!!!!
Sometimes, Just Scanning These Headlines Alone Are Good For A Chuckle, And Worth The Click!
http://www.diigo.com/user/gunnyg
**********
R. W. “Dick” Gaines
THE “G” BLOG. @WordPress.com
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/
(AKA: Gunny G’s Globe and Anchor Online….)
**********
The “G” WebLog @Network54
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
**********
FOR MY “G” BLOGS UPDATES…
SEND: “ADD-ME”
GunnyG@gmail.com
**********
RANTS-n-RAVES: OUR LATE GREAT REPUBLIC!
*********
TODAY’s TOONS by Pookie
http://www.gopachy.com/smf/index.php?board=4.0
**********
A REPUBLIC–NOT A DEMOCRACY –
IF YOU CAN KEEP IT
*****
Gunny G: Founding Father Quotes and The U.S. Constitution, etc.…
Declaration of Independence: The Founding Document; Articles of Confederation; The (Secret) Constitutional Convention.
The U.S. Constitution: The Ideal/Goal….
Founding Father Quotes: The Practical/What We Must Do!…
*****
Get It?
Here, Let Me Google That Fer Ya!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=let+me+google+that+for+you
*****
Recent Comments