reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Well he may have dropped it, but then if there is no evidence, why in the heck is Judge Carter proceeding??
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
Hearing: Motion for Discovery of records showing relevance to eligibility
Location: Federal Court building in Santa Ana, CA
Time/Date: 8:00 AM Pacific Tuesday, September 8th 2009
Judge: David O. Carter
www.orlytaitzesq.com...
|
I have no clue. There are several people out there pursuing this fantasy. I just read about Franks in the news today and wanted to update that story.
|
Just for the record, there is a very crystal clear image of the eBay seller BC document in pdf form at this link, and this is NOT from the video. It
appears to be a pretty good scan of the original document, which then begs the question of how they got a hold of this thing (unless it is Smith's
blog)- because Smith has been pretty protective of this document, and backed out of the deal with WND.
Original Source:
totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...
Archived on the ATS Media Portal here:
files.abovetopsecret.com...
The clarity of the footprint in this document should be noted, which clearly shows much more detail than we saw in the video.
Also, much more detail is now visible in the stamps and seal.
Hmm.
|
Panic in D.C.? Justice urges birth suit tossed
Late motion filed by feds as case ready for hearing
www.wnd.com...
The U.S. Justice Department is urging a federal judge in California to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack
Obama to hold the office of president.
The highly anticipated hearing tomorrow morning before Judge David Carter features attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs, as well as a document
that one person has sworn is the original birth certificate of Obama from Kenya – not Hawaii, where the administration maintains Obama was born.
In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead
focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate
they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.
There is a very compelling refute to this argument here:
www.thebirthers.org...
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
California State Law - § 6906
§ 6906. The electors, when convened, if both candidates are alive, shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice
President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent, one of whom, at least, is not an
inhabitant of this state.
They made their own argument moot and in fact is highlighting the need for judicial review because California along with the other 26 states have
denied the electors of their states with the opportunity to exercise the power the DOJ says they have. In fact the total number of states that mandate
that the Electors vote for the winner totals 281, clearly enough to win the election with.
The DOJ calls upon the courts lack of jurisdiction by referring to the case of Corrie v. Caterpillar, 503 F.3d 974, 980, 982 (9th Cir. 2007) In this
case the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts assertion that it lacked jurisdiction under the “political question.” The Appeal
was correctly affirmed because it interfered with the Presidents authority to conduct foreign policy decisions. This however is not a political
question but a constitutional question as Article III, Section 2 provides the Court with jurisdiction.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more
states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands
under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
|
