Users Online Now: 499 (Who's On?)		Visitors Today: 19,585
Pageviews Today: 48,577	Threads Today: 78	Posts Today: 1,110
02:16 AM

News

Back to Forum

Post New Thread

View Favorites

breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY

RSS

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 657794
11/4/2009 8:32 PM
Report abusive post

breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY

Quote

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Posted in Uncategorized on October 29, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts - Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR

The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.

TAITZ LOST!!!

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]

ON The RED List !
User ID: 802743
11/4/2009 8:51 PM

Re: breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY	Quote
NO !Taitz WON for the people and against the ILLEGAL ALIEN FRAUD and LIER now in the Malloto House. This leaves the door WIDE open for just such a filing in D.C. ! One possible problem; The 10 square miles of D.C. IS the seat of the corporation that RUNS this country ! If they let/helped him into the presidency, then they will find a way to keep him there, probably !

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 802743
11/4/2009 8:51 PM

Re: breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY	Quote

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776606
11/4/2009 10:54 PM

Re: breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY	Quote
TAITZ LOST!!! [link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 657794

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 515900
11/5/2009 3:44 AM

Re: breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY	Quote

Aquarius 7 Subscriber

User ID: 736450
11/5/2009 2:29 PM

Re: breaking news judge cater throws out obama eligibility case NOT TRIAL IN JANUARY	Quote
“ Put on the whole armor of God … for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the wickedness of the evil spirits in the heavens. …” ~ from Ephesians 6:11-12

Back to Forum

Post New Thread

View Favorites

Disclaimer:
This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.

The content of post on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of GodlikeProductions. This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.

Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.

This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.

Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.

We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.

This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.

Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.

Privacy Policy - Terms Of Use

Copyright 1999-2009 © GodLikeProductions.com

Page generated in 0.005s (5 queries)