Anonymous said...
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.
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/lady-liberty-before-carters-bench/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks Anon all info appreciated
Steve
Monday, October 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
" 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."
ReplyDeleteThese precedents were probably from the 19th century. I suspect this may be Judge Carter's out if he wnats one.
As I understand Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rules, the burden is on the Movant (Team Obama), NOT Respondents. For Movant to prevail ALL facts and allegations by Respondent MUST be assumed true with the Court ONLY THEN finding as a matter of law there is no claim for those plaintiffs (respondents to Motion to Dismiss).
ReplyDeleteClearly Judge Carter can not do that here, by his own statement (essentially an admission) that "this case was unique and there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly" meaning it is NOT established, by the Judge's own statement, that there is NO legal claim here.
Moreover, proceeding with discovery and trial will not preculde Team Obama from subsequently arguing and showing that the case lacks merit despite the allegations all being true; however denying discovery and trial, forcing plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal, effectively continues the damage and harm sustained EVERY DAY THE ALLEGED USURPATION CONTINUES foreclosing relief were it later ruled on Appeal that Dismissal was in error.
Bottom line, the only lawfully non-prejudicial prudent step is to allow discovery to proceed with scheduling the trial, and allow Movants to appeal denial of their Motion to Dismiss as they wish. Certainly, the other way around is NOT the normal standard and is a real stretch when applying the standards required for Dismissal under the Federal Rules.
Judge Carter must know this.