8:00 am Pst- Good morning GUL readers, our intrepid boots on the ground reporter Gary will be updating from the Federal District Courthouse, Santa Ana, Ca. He is in place and will be phoning in shortly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US Marshalls have established added security due to the high profile nature of the case. All members of the audience are being logged in and recorded per the court.
Turnout for this hearing is less, approximately 100 people are in line for a seat in the courtroom.
The hearing will begin at approximately 8:30. Justice Carter's court is currently in session on a different case.
Under review today will be two items of critical concern. Defendant Obama's 9/4/09 Motion to Dismiss is to receive final ruling to either allow or be thrown out. Once the MTD is thrown out, a ruling for full Discovery is anticipated from Justice Carter.
The Federal Marshalls have set up an auxiliary viewing room near the courtroom, live video feed will be shown in that room for any overflow crowd. Our reporter is assured of receiving a seat in the actual courtroom, and given the historical significance of this hearing, chooses to be in the main courtroom, thereby giving him access to off camera events and reactions.
To those who have thanked us for this coverage, you are more than welcome, we are at your service, as fellow free Americans.
8:36 am Pst- The audience has been seated, hopefully the hearing will only be 30 minutes to an hour and we should hear the findings. If the hearing lasts longer, a mid morning recess at the 2 hour mark usually takes place. (10:30 Pst) and that will be an opportunity for Gary to phone in.
Steve ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10:12 am pst A commenter has asked if the case has been thrown out, I have NOT heard from Gary so the information can not be verified as accurate. Remember Obots like to play on the blogs
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted 2009-10-05 10:25 AM (#24846 - in reply to #24844) By: Savvy
There is a report at FreeRepublic that the case was thrown out ... but regulars there seem to have concluded it's a bogus posting. The bogus information appears on twitter, too.
10:26 am Pst Not hearing from Gary is a good sign, after approximately 2 hours into the hearing. If as some have speculated the case was thrown out, it would not take 2 hours to rule in favor of Defendant Obama's motion to dismiss, more like 15 minutes and Gary would have phoned that in long ago. Hang in there people.
Steve ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted 2009-10-05 10:33 AM (#24848 - in reply to #24847) By: Savvy
Posted 2009-10-05 11:52 AM (#24852 - in reply to #24848) By: EternalVigilance
The hearing appears to be over, with no ruling from the bench.
Posted 2009-10-05 11:53 AM (#24853 - in reply to #24852) By: EternalVigilance
Uncorroborated report:
11:50 am PST
Gary reported the court is in recess and finished for the day.
Intially Judge Carter was leaning to dismiss the case and accept Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, however, Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep made a very impassioned argument and the gallery burst into applause, the Marshals did not stop the outburst, and it was felt Judge Carter was swayed by the outburst to not throw out the MTD but rather reconsider his decision.
He advised both parties no matter his ruling, both would be able to appeal to a higher court.
Posted 2009-10-05 11:58 AM (#24854 - in reply to #24853) By: EternalVigilance
Either can appeal? . . . How encouraging!
Forgive me if I don't break out into the Star Spangled Banner.
No way does he need to consider this further before making a wise decision. This is merely more delay to buy time for the (in)Justice Department to prepare the airwaves for the "Kool-aid drinkers lose in court" report.
It seems to me that if the case were of utmost importance, as Carter led the plaintiffs to believe that it was to him back in September, discovery would already have been ordered, and we would have both the questions answered, and a major decision before the U.S. Congress at this moment, forcing their crooked hand, in public.
I told you this guy is a Jack Murtha.
He is the only kind of marine who could ever be considered an EX-marine. . . one who compromises his oath for political gain while reminding us all that the Constitution is a "living document."
Don't hold your breath awaiting justice from the establishment. Clinton appointees don't betray their comrades like Republican ones do - indeed, as Republicans themselves do!
Remember that sinking feeling we all felt on behalf of Von Stauffenberg in the film Valkyrie? It was a good try, by a good guy, who was destined to die a hero's death.
Are we all prayed up?
At what point does the Obama crowd presume that they have cleared the last red light on their runway to a complete and irreversible death blow to this Republic?
Carter sounds like he's toying with us just prior to waving the green flag.
Edited by Roundhead 2009-10-05 1:03 PM
Posted 2009-10-05 12:51 PM (#24856 - in reply to #24854) By: Roundhead
He hasn't ruled, so I think you're jumping the gun.
Posted 2009-10-05 12:59 PM (#24857 - in reply to #24856) By: EternalVigilance
I'm praying that I am wrong, but preparing to see my worst fear materialize out of this courthouse.
Keep those prayers going up.
We are either John Hancock or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Either way, faithful to Our Lord we must remain.
Posted 2009-10-05 1:08 PM (#24858 - in reply to #24857) By: Roundhead
TOP
Posted 2009-10-05 1:12 PM (#24861 - in reply to #24858) By: lifepath
The Post & Email just spoke with a secretary of Mr. Charles Lincoln about the hearing, and publishes this summary:
It was a long hearing from about 8:30 AM to 11:45 AM Pacific time, with only a 20 minute recess. More than 100 persons attended. There was an overflow room with video hookup to accomodate everyone.
Judge David O. Carter issued no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, nor to grant discovery. He cited his need to sort out the complex legal issues, consider all the arguments carefully.
During the hearing the specific agenda disscussed was as follow (this is not in chronological order):
Judge Carter denied Attorney Gary Kreep’s Motion for Severance, which would have created a parallel case, for his clients.
Judge Carter questioned the Defense’s counsel, regarding the method of impeachment and how that would address this controversy.
Attorney Gary Kreep argued that the case does not involve impeachment; since Obama has entered office unlawfully.
Judge Carter questioned on what basis his court could issue a quo warrento proceeding, when the D.C. court had jurisdiction over this kind of proceeding. Dr. Orly Taitz responded by citing precedents in the 9th Circuit, that allowed quo warrento proceedings to be held in California, rather than in Washington, D.C., in account of the great distance to the other side of the continent.
When questioned about the injury suffered by other candidates on the ballot in California, Attorney Kreep explained the injury they suffered and the Judge responded thoughtfully to his arguments.
Regarding military plaintiffs, Judge Carter mentioned that there was a ruling in the 9th circuit which denied standing to oath takers on the basis that this was not a particularized injury.
In all, Judge Carter was very concerned about standing claims and wanted to know what the actual injuries were, and how standing was being justified.
The Defense argued that the Court had no authority to hear the case, and that claims were political in nature and therefore not for the Judiciary to adjudicate.
Judge Carter pointed out that the case was unique and that there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly.
The Post & Email will interview Mr. Charles Lincoln live, and post this in a separate report in about 3 hours.
Burden of Proof on Obama's Origins - A dentist and lawyer, Orly Taitz has plenty to keep her busy. But a side passion is what consumes her these days: challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Posted 2009-10-05 2:25 PM (#24864 - in reply to #24863) By: Savvy
We must keep marching on, praying to our Almighty God for the strength, and courage, to win this raging battle to save our Republic!!!!!!
Posted 2009-10-05 3:07 PM (#24868 - in reply to #24861) By: Georgette
The Orange County Register article, linked above, contained this:
Carter pointed out that Taitz has posted on her Web site a note encouraging supporters to call Carter and ask that he back their cause. He said his office receives 40 to 100 such calls a day.
“If there’s any inappropriate pressure, it’s coming from that,” he said, asking her to stop it. “That’s not the America I grew up in, where we hear both sides and judge cases on their merits…. Regardless, the vast majority of the people I know who have run for government office are honest and ethical.”
Posted 2009-10-05 3:27 PM (#24871 - in reply to #24864) By: Philomena
It appears to me that Orly Taitz is providing the cover for Carter's dismissal of this case by playing right into the arguments of DOJ's arguments. It's tailor-made to discredit Keyes and Drake.
The desire that the Constitution be followed sounds like it's hardly being heard outside the walls of that courtroom, and the judge has to study the complexity of the matter.
I don't see how much plainer it must be, or how much clearer the judge's oath could have been.
The 20th Amendment has been violated. Obama has not merely failed to qualify, but refused, to the tune of $1.5 million. This is a no-brainer that needs no precedent.
As I said before, breathe as many prayers as you can for us to be just and Godly, but don't hold your breath for Carter to be so.
Just prepare to squawk loud and long, and on topic - not Orly's diversionary clap trap.
The 20th Amendment has been violated and Joe Biden is the real president.
"President Biden!"
Sticks in my throat, but the Constitution would still be the Law of the Land if a judge were to speak those words such that the People could hear them, and then relay them on the next march on D.C. - this time with 2.5 million rather than the 1.5 last time.
WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS - NOT MEN!
Edited by Roundhead 2009-10-05 3:51 PM
Posted 2009-10-05 3:49 PM (#24874 - in reply to #24864) By: Roundhead
It seems Give Us Liberty is clearly in Orly Taitz' corner in any dispute that exists between Taitz and Gary Kreep.
I found it interesting Give Us Liberty references Orly's emotional, impassioned plea to the judge on behalf of liberty ... and then says Gary Kreep countered the arguments the DOJ government attorneys made.
Maybe it's a good thing Gary Kreep is participating in the case, now. (Good choice, Markham and Wiley.)
: )
Posted 2009-10-05 4:07 PM (#24877 - in reply to #24874) By: Savvy
Maybe no ruling - yet - and either side could appeal; it still smells a lot like delay and cover to spectators. Wheels of justice might turn slowly, but they shouldn't spin in the mud though.
Posted 2009-10-05 4:59 PM (#24880 - in reply to #24853) By: FreeByrd
Are you suggesting the judge gives the appearance of moving forward on the case (the wheels are turning), but since the car is stuck in the mud, turning the wheels does nothing to move forward the car ... or the case?
It sounds like Orly's impassioned plea may have momentarily moved the court ... but the real sticking point causing the case to stall is ... what? DOJ arguments? If so, it sounds as if Gary Kreep countered them well -- btw, that's why Kreep and Taitz may actually be a good team ... not because they are of the same mindset, but precisely because of their different strengths and perspectives.
That's what I was getting at earlier in the thread.
Just a thought.
Posted 2009-10-05 6:53 PM (#24885 - in reply to #24880) By: Savvy
Maybe I should have said the wheels of justice move slowly, but shouldn’t be stuck in the mud either. It appears to not be moving. Well at least not dismissed as they tried to suggest it was early at the beginning. (I am trying not to project pessimism &hellip
Posted 2009-10-05 8:14 PM (#24892 - in reply to #24885) By: FreeByrd
Posted 2009-10-05 8:37 PM (#24893 - in reply to #24892) By: EternalVigilance
I remember a long time ago, Alan Keyes said Obama's eligibility would be resolved by the SCOTUS ... because regardless of which side wins an individual case -- the other side will appeal.
During the Sept. 8th hearing, Judge Carter repeatedly warned DOJ attorneys of winning the battle, but losing the war.
I wish I could have been in the courtroom today to see for myself the judge's reactions and demeanor.
Posted 2009-10-05 8:43 PM (#24894 - in reply to #24892) By: Savvy
I'm most upset by Judge Carter's suggestion that the Electoral College should have brought it up. The members of the Electoral College do not represent the people. The very list of electors is difficult to obtain, and it took quite a bit of research on my part to find out exactly who they were in Illinois and what their connection is. They turned out to be party leaders or immediate family members of a politician. There were MANY people across the country who pleaded with their electors to investigate eligibility. I mailed out a personal letter to each and every one of the Illinois electors, and received back not ONE response. They don't speak for the people. They speak for the party. They should have done their job, but they didn't.
Edited by Philomena 2009-10-05 9:28 PM
Posted 2009-10-05 9:27 PM (#24897 - in reply to #24894) By: Philomena
From that report above: It seems the defense was all about the “power” and the "balance of power” abilities of a president -- not about defending the person of Obama himself. This is pretty insulting.
>‘If the [alleged] president is forced to go through depositions, and so on, for all these various cases, it would effect his ability to govern.’
But of course his ability to govern or hold the job, at all, would have been affected by those facts and circumstances … and how he got it.
Speaking of testifying and depsitions, what could he say....? Maybe we do have_something:
" Well, you know, the— I— I— I do occupy— a pretty special seat at the moment. But— but I do think that— look I mean, let's face it, the— if you look at the news cycle over the last— over the last week— you know, it— it— it hasn't been the— the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face as a country. That's not the folks who've gotten a lot of coverage." -- Obama to David Gregory 9-20
Edited by FreeByrd 2009-10-06 12:07 AM
Posted 2009-10-05 11:11 PM (#24899 - in reply to #24893) By: FreeByrd
" Well, you know, the— I— I— I do occupy— a pretty special seat at the moment. But— but I do think that— look I mean, let's face it, the— if you look at the news cycle over the last— over the last week— you know, it— it— it hasn't been the— the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face as a country. That's not the folks who've gotten a lot of coverage." -- Obama to David Gregory 9-20
WHAT?!?
That sounds like the kind of conversation that might come out of my own mouth if I were talking on a cell phone while driving... IF I WERE THAT STUPID!
Posted 2009-10-06 2:31 AM (#24903 - in reply to #24899) By: Geronimo
Above eloquent statement is at about 1:00 minute:
September 20, 2009 [Alleged] President Obama with David Gregory " Meet The Press " Part2 2/2
Posted 2009-10-06 1:58 PM (#24948 - in reply to #24911) By: Savvy
Eight in 10 Americans in a July Pew poll said that they had heard "a lot" or "a little" about the contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.
Source: The Washington Post Oct. 6, 2009
Burden of Proof on Obama's Origins - A dentist and lawyer, Orly Taitz has plenty to keep her busy. But a side passion is what consumes her these days: challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Associated Baptist Press - Bob Allen - 5 hours ago
SANTA ANA, Calif. (ABP) -- A federal judge heard arguments for three hours Oct. 5 about whether or not he should dismiss a lawsuit questioning ...
Posted 2009-10-06 8:09 PM (#24958 - in reply to #24948) By: Savvy
Where do these journalists get this poop? TV? The Constitution vests sole power to impeach a sitting president with Congress,...
He's not a sitting President until he meets Constitutional qualifications for the office. Who said impeach. We didn't say impeach. We just don't know his NBC qualification.
Obama has posted online images of his birth certificate,...
Web images or a hard copy Certification of Live Birth don't satisfy the requirements.
...conspiracy theorists who believe Obama is attempting to hide the truth...
Attempting? He has been hiding the truth. And shame on those who are condoning that. The defenders of the Constitution are demanding the truth. Produce your Birth Certificate.
Posted 2009-10-06 11:42 PM (#24965 - in reply to #24958) By: Cousin_Ken
Last night I read through this report of events Oct. 5th that EV posted,, above:
The report is decidedly pro-Obama/gov't/DOJ in its slant (i.e., DOJ arguments are described in detail, Kreep/Taitz arguments are described often in summary or else marginalized by the writer, and in some cases ... attempts to refute are provided by the writer's own added "research" (which is taken with a grain of salt, so to speak.) The writer goes so far as to call the members of the public in attendance the "peanut gallery" on repeated occasions, as they were pro-lawsuit.)
According to WaveyDavey, DOJ attorneys in court (Mr. West, et. al.) attempted to persuade Judge Carter impeachment was the only way to remove Obama from the White House. Judge Carter asked both sides repeatedly what the process was for removal ... DOJ said the U.S. Constitution provided only for impeachment, after inauguration ... which could be in accord with incapacitation (25th Amendment.)
Both Taitz and Kreep argued impeachment applicable only to someone holding the office of the presidency. If Obama was never eligible, he never was president. If Obama's not president, he cannot be impeached, as if he were.
Taitz (native to Communist Moldova) spoke of corruption in govt -- specifically congress -- as reason the people must appeal to the courts for justice in this matter.
The judge's most pointed request of attorneys for the plaintiffs was that they offer him reason to justify ruling clients had STANDING to bring the suit.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs emphsized citizens have a right to know if the president is eligible for the office. And stated "... under D.C. versus Heller ordinary citizens have the right to enforce provisions of the Constitution."
Kreep spoke to standing for Wiley and Markham, saying, that under Hollander, "... all candidates for office are damaged if there's any other candidate who is not eligible." Carter asked the injury, to which Kreep responded, "the injury in fact is that there was not a fair election."
Posted 2009-10-07 4:35 AM (#24971 - in reply to #24965) By: Savvy
As was mentioned earlier, 66% of the electoral college votes were available to Alan Keyes in 2008. Only a plurality is needed to win the presidency. Therefore, it was mathematically possible for Alan Keyes to have won the presidency, in 2008.
Even so, take for example, a state where no write-in candidates are allowed. All (100%) of the votes cast for the office will be distributed among a fixed number of candidates: those people listed on the ballot.
When a voter makes his or her selection, they must choose among the candidates listed.
To reason a candidate is not injured if the ballot includes the name of a non-candidate (ineligible) choice is simply non-sensical. Obviously, allowing a portion of the vote to go to someone who is not truly a candidate, but commonly perceived as a candidate ... affects the distribution of votes to all other candidates. Then, factor in the complexity of the what-if's: What if Obama had never entered the DNC primary race b/c he was not eligible? What if another Dem. had won the DNC primary? What if ...? What if ... ? What if ...? To say all these changes in scenario would not affect the final distribution of votes cast, makes no sense. Obviously, the differences involved could be great.
Remember Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life? In the story, Stewart, in financial difficulty at Christmastime, was given the opportunity by his guardian angel to see how reality would have been altered had one wish been granted ... that he was never born. The movie chronicles all the lives touched by Stewart's positive influence in the world and he realized the tremendous impact of one human life. I'm suggesting Obama's participation in the elections of 2008 may have been a negative-version ofIt's a Wonderful Life.
How different was the world with vs. without Stewart's participation? How different would Election 2008's outcomes have been had Obama never participated as a supposedly qualified candidate?
To say the differences can be marginalized ... defies reason, IMO.
Posted 2009-10-07 4:53 AM (#24973 - in reply to #24971) By: Savvy
October 5th, 2009 ...
Hearing Result
By Alan Keyes October 7, 2009 Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
Apparently, it's not yet clear whether the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defense DOJ attorneys has been rejected, or not. I guess we're still waiting to hear. As EternalVigilance pointed out, the finalization of scheduling conference dates may not be indicative of the judge's decision on the Motion to Dismiss ... it may just be the posting of Minutes from the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing.
I guess we're still awaiting the judge's decision.
Posted 2009-10-07 2:19 PM (#25031 - in reply to #25030) By: Savvy
Gary Kreep Interview ... at 43:00 minutes on the clock ... Oct. 7, 2009
Posted 2009-10-07 4:01 PM (#25035 - in reply to #25031) By: Savvy
Part 2 and Part 3 of the court-step interviews are now posted, above as well as a blog-talk radio interview with Gary Kreep, attorney for AIP participants, Markham Robinson and Pastor Wiley Drake.
Alan Keyes, also an AIP participant, continues to be represented by attorney Orly Taitz.
Posted 2009-10-08 10:44 PM (#25145 - in reply to #25035) By: Savvy
Apparently plaintiffs were prohibited from discovery on September 16th. On Oct. 8th, Orly filed a motion asking for relief from the stay of discovery so as to abide by the time table confirmed by the court in the order we saw posted Oct. 7 that finalized the previously tentative schedule, and included a trial date of Jan. 26, 2010.
Here's Orly's motion: KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 82 - 0/07/2009 82 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Accelerate motion for relief from stay of discovery
Tonight, I see posted to Scribd a document purported to be Judge Carter's rejection of Orly Taitz' request to begin discovery pending resolution of the government's Motion To Dismiss, the judge implying scheduled dates would be postponed, if plaintiffs have insufficient time for discovery after the MTD is resolved.
Posted 2009-10-08 11:10 PM (#25146 - in reply to #25145) By: Savvy
GARY KREEP, attorney for Markham Robinson and Pastor Wiley Drake in the [Keyes and] Barnett v Obama lawsuit will speak at an event in support of candidate MARCO RUBIO in Florida this weekend ... I believe the event is scheduled for Saturday, [Oct. 10, 2009.]
