It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
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)
"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.
This is from Devvy Kidd….found at Dr. Taitz website….
Monday, September 7, 2009 5:48 AM
This sender is DomainKeys verified
View contact details
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.
“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
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
DOJ Last Minute Demands to Judge Carter
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.
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..."
[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]
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.
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 !!!
[edit on 9/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]
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!
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.
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."