PDA

View Full Version : Can this be true?


chance
11-17-2009, 01:22
Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!

Many concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing 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. 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. 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. She was fearless!

Richard
11-17-2009, 01:38
Not true.

The referenced case has already been dismissed by Judge Carter, who concluded his 29 October 2009 order granting the defendants' Motion to Dismiss with the following statement:

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore 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.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

chance
11-17-2009, 01:52
Richard,
You really know how to kill a guys buzz.:D

greenberetTFS
11-17-2009, 15:20
If the judge was a former Marine,than IMO he's a disgrace to the the Marine Corps....:mad::mad::mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

Richard
11-17-2009, 15:50
...he's a disgrace to the the Marine Corps...

For upholding the law? :confused:

Richard

greenberetTFS
11-17-2009, 16:00
For upholding the law? :confused:

Richard

Is that what you call it? I read your post and I couldn't agree with the judges response........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

Dozer523
11-17-2009, 16:09
Richard,
You really know how to kill a guys buzz.:DYeah what a spoil sport. :boo Richard, boo boo.
All he had to do was Google 'Judge Carter" and "Obama" and get about 10 quick links (any of which revealed about 2,010,500 -- who counts? -- links) The third one was along the lines of your "STOP THE PRESSES" discovery dated September 9, -- only two months ago! A tiny bit more searching found the news of October 29, 2009. And with that catty comment from the bench too.
It's only news if its new. . . and accurate.

Let it go, Teddy.:D

Richard
11-17-2009, 16:34
Is that what you call it?

You should go here and read the entire ruling by the Judge.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

And..."Yep!" ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Knight
11-18-2009, 06:39
If it's the law, it's called "legal plunder". SO many "laws" created to protect the "innocent". Very, very sad state of affairs IMO.:mad:

Slantwire
11-18-2009, 08:39
If it's the law, it's called "legal plunder". SO many "laws" created to protect the "innocent". Very, very sad state of affairs IMO.:mad:

And yet, we don't want judges attempting to legislate from the bench. No one likes when the other side tries it, so why should we do it?

SCOTUS is the closest thing to an exception, but there are plenty of laws that are constitutional, yet still bad. Bad laws should be fixed by the legislature. So the right way to set things straight is to try to elect people who will fix or eliminate bad laws.

spherojon
03-17-2010, 12:11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_birth_certificate

(note to QPs do not read the yahoo user comments, unless you want to be annoyed)