Main Menu

Birther “triple crown”

Tomorrow, October 5, 2009, could be the “triple crown” for the Birthers:

  1. Judge Carter is scheduled to rule on the government’s motion to dismiss in Barnett v. Obama. If the case survives this motion, discovery could begin.
  2. Judge Land may rule on sanctions threatened against lawyer Orly Taitz in Georgia.
  3. The Supreme Court may indicate its decision to grant a Writ of Certiorari in Craig v. Obama.

Monday will certainly not be a “slow news day” on the Obama Conspiracy front.

, , , , , ,

21 Responses to Birther “triple crown”

  1. avatar
    JoZeppy October 5, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    I’m going to venture a wild shot that the only one that may not come to a head today is number 2. #1 might not have a written order today, but I’m guessing Judge Carter will at least orally dismiss the suit, with a written order to follow shortly. Craig, like virtually everything that hits SCOTUS will be denied cert. without comment.

    #2 is probably the most intersting. While I would be surprised if Judge Land had his law clerks working furiously away this weekend to give Orly a big legal kick in the head, considering the bogus affidavit that she filed, that very well could fall under subordinating perjury, and how her Motion to Recuse just seemed to be an attempt to poke a shape stick at Judge Land, it wouldn’t surprise me to see him come out with something today.

    It may be a dark day in the world of birthers. Black Monday for birthers…sunshiney day for the rest of us who like to laugh at their silliness.

  2. avatar
    Greg October 5, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    Craig v. US:

    08-10817
    CRAIG, STEVEN L. V. UNITED STATES
    The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

  3. avatar
    Greg October 5, 2009 at 10:40 am #

    Today’s order list, p. 75.

  4. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 5, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    From Politijab:
    “08-10817 CRAIG, STEVEN L. V. UNITED STATES
    The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”
    … as expected when it was not on the list Friday. One down, two to go.

  5. avatar
    Lupin October 5, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Didn’t one of Orly’s minions claim to have seen a man looking kinda like AG holder in the vicinity of the courthouse?

    Of course all those “racists” (consult birther dictionary) look the same.

  6. avatar
    jvn October 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    I love that story!

    The AG decides to work “behind the scenes” and illegally to influence the judge in that case, but then decides to go to the coffee shop across the street from the court!!!

    Yeah – that’s believable! (If you’re a birther)

  7. avatar
    Per Son October 5, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    Any news feeds about what is going on before Judge Carter? I am dying here!

  8. avatar
    Mary October 5, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    There is an affidavit reported here ( by Taitz’s mouthpiece)

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/was-u-s-attorney-general-secretly-in-town-to-counsel-land/

    Of course now the AG’s office will be being bombarded with requests for personal viewing – accompanied by’experts’ with no expertise except being able to operate a cheap digital camera – wanting to peruse his diary, and the AG will be folded into the Great Brownshirt Treason Fix routine.

    Oh, and hello 🙂

  9. avatar
    wendy October 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    sigh..
    the refresh button on the keyboard is getting worn down.
    News. News.
    Affidavit re Holder…one more nail in the Taitz coffin. As soon as Land decides to validate where Holder was that day.. then she has one more “count” of filing what she might call evidence, but is little more than a comic book.
    “gee.. it looked like him, that proves conspiracy”.

  10. avatar
    sunkawakan October 5, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    There’s a freeper claiming that Carter dismissed the case, but it’s not verified and a bit suspect:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2355241/posts

  11. avatar
    sunkawakan October 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Note the information at freep was false.

  12. avatar
    nBc October 5, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    Yes, AXJ posted the same yesterday

  13. avatar
    Con Rep October 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    I believe that’s based on a post I saw at AXJ early this AM — well before the opening of court. There isn’t anything posted on Pacer in the Georgia case, re sanctions from Judge Land, as of this hour.
    It’s obviously a spoof, to which birthers are notoriously susceptible.

  14. avatar
    Mary October 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    Well that was weird. Freepers have outed AXJ as a Stormfront…erm…front.

    They were blaming ‘Obots’ for planting ‘false info’ up to that point.

    Vairy Eeenteresteeeng.

  15. avatar
    Mary October 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Turns out AXJ are a front for Stormfr0nt. Freepers outed them and pulled the thread.

  16. avatar
    sunkawakan October 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    From OCWeekly Tweets:

    Recess in Orly Taitz case. Judge doesn’t see why Obama should testify. “He doesn’t remember being born.”
    23 minutes ago from TweetDeck

    http://twitter.com/OCWeekly

  17. avatar
    Black Lion October 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Good Point…I don’t remember being born either….After arguing with some birthers I have discovered one of the reasons they continually stay misinformed. For instance the following list is their support of cases that they claim support their 2 citizen have to be parents contention. If you notice how some cases have nothing to do with that and others are misquoted….Funny stuff…

    Hatch, or any other Senator, are not the experts on what a natural born citizen is. But Leahy has is right – BOTH PARENTS MUST BE U.S. CITIZENS.

    1. The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 – “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” (Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, rather British subject). The Act was repealed in 1795, but not because of any dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

    2. John Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    3. Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” Book 1, Chap. 19, Sect. 212 – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    4. In 1814 the U.S. Supreme Court in THE VENUS relied upon and cited Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship of a “domicil”. See U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 and The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    5. “U. S. v. Rhodes (1866) – “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

    6. Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)- “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    7. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – “The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    8. John Jay letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

    9. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.

    10. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, is a natural born citizen.

  18. avatar
    Bob October 5, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Look like Judge Carter has taken the motions under submission.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy October 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    Well, considering that the birthers are saying that Orly was plagued by standing and jurisdiction issues, seems like even her supporters are preparing for dismissal.

    No trifecta today….I suppose no one should be too surpirsed. I’m guessing both Judges Land and Carter are going to put their clerks to work drafting their orders.

    However, I expect Judge Land’s will be much more fun to read. He already seemed a touch p/o’ed. I don’t think her last pleadings did anything to endear herself to him.

    I’d wager we’ll hear from Land first. Just a gut feeling based on absolutely nothing rational whatsoever.

  20. avatar
    misha October 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    I saw Elvis in the frozen food isle.

  21. avatar
    Rickey October 5, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    The affidavit claims that the man was “not large of stature,” but someone found a NY Times article on Holder which says that he was 6-3″ tall when he was in high school!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/world/americas/01iht-01holder.18302986.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1