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).
“Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:35 PM
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.
(Sept. 8, 2009: Santa Ana, California) — In a case watched
intensely throughout America, Federal District Judge David. O. Carter,
of the Souther Division, held a Motion hearing for the case Pamela Barnett, et al., vs. Barack H. Obama, et al., pleaded by Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., and the U.S. Attorney General, CA District, respectively.
The hearing finally took place about 11 A.M., local time, due to a
change in venue, ordered by Judge Carter to accomodate the large
numbers of visitors.
Carter appears to want the case to ‘play out’. He said that the
American people are surrounded by rumors of their President and should
not have to live with this… Additionally, the military who are risking
their lives deserve to know they have a legitimate Commander-In-Chief.
Carter repeated this about 3 times during the circa 60 minute hearing.
Judge Carter also went on to say that this case should not be
dragged out for months or years and people deserve to know, to which
the audience responded with rounds of applause….Continue Reading
Comment by:
Gene Cunningham Entered on: 2009-11-27 07:44:47
Stunning turn around. My complaint is this - if the complaint is that he IS NOT the president, how is it that the Court's reasoning is that only the legislature can remove a president? In New Jersey, the action started was similar - he is not the president - so how is it the attorney general is Obama's lawyer? None of this makes sense, at least not in everyday logic. You wonder about direct threats against judges and their families, knowing who these people are.
Comment by:
G Cone Entered on: 2009-11-18 18:45:05
I got an email forward about this today too , then another one who pointed out that this is already on snopes...
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp
-
What the F#%? Did they get to this guy or what? I don't want to be paranoid but this is an absolute traveshamockery.
Comment by:
Ernest Hancock Entered on: 2009-11-18 17:48:18
Judge
David O. Carter Dismisses Taitz "Keyes/Barnett vs Obama" Eligibility
Case. Rules Courts can't remove him.
What
a turnaround for the upstanding Marine. He was the one everyone was counting on
after what he said at the begining of the Hearings that the military needed to
know if their Commander N Chief was Constitutionally Eligible to hold office
and give orders. He said he would hear the merits of the case and even set
trial dates for Jan 16th. Now he says the Internet Hawaiian Certificate of Live
Birth from Obamas Campaign site Factcheck and Fight the Smears which proven to
be a fraud was proof enough he is a American and that only Congress can remove
him.
bottom line of Judge Carter's MTD Order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
21808122/J...-Ruling-on-MTD IV.
DISPOSITION [p.29-30]
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be
dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds,
asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from
being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and
constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a
singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system
of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial
authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely
political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases
to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v.
Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the
Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of
this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same
Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those
limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President
can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the
Court in that process.
Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the
Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the
Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was
popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has
dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant
their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set
forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of
this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers
commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of
patriotism.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009
______________________________
_ DAVID
O. CARTER United States District
Judge
Comment by:
G Cone Entered on: 2009-11-18 13:44:25
That links to an article from Sept. 9, 2009. I found a news article on CBS News' website from Oct. 29 that says the lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Carter? Wassup wit dat?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5452727.shtml
