We reported on the case of Jones v Obama last April. Ruth Jones is attempting to unseat the President through a lawsuit. The U. S. Attorneys filed a “Notice of Related Case” saying that this case is a repeat of Barnett v. Obama. The government stated that the present case raises the same issues as the former case and that it would save the court considerable labor if the case could be sent to Judge David O. Carter, who also heard Barnett.

Well, Judge Carter is having none of it. The transfer order was declined by Carter with a big red rubber stamp saying: “TRANSFER ORDER DECLINED” and the handwritten comment: “Insufficiently related under the rule.”

Judge David O. Carter

I’ve had a few days to think about the transcript from the October 5, 2009, hearing in Barnett v. Obama. I am not the first to try to figure out where Judge David O. Carter is leaning based on his comments during the hearing.

The bulk of the Judge’s questions related to two issues: the standing of the plaintiffs and the political process for removing a president. It seems to me that these two questions focus on the criteria under which Judge Carter may dismiss the case.

Judge Carter seems to be concerned with the question: if the plaintiffs are right that President Obama is not eligible, what is the mechanism under the Constitution through which their complaint is redressed? In his view, there most be some avenue for a citizen to seek redress for a legitimate complaint.

Is it in the courts? Here the question of standing arises. Without standing, the plaintiffs cannot proceed in the court. Judge Carter wanted to address the standing of each of the classes of plaintiffs: voters, political candidates, reserve military personnel and active military personnel. (The decision in Berg v. Obama already addressed the voter plaintiff’s lack of standing.)

Is it through a political process? The second area reaches into the political question doctrine. If the Constitution places the removal of a president from office within the sole power of the Congress (either through impeachment or determination of incapacity), then the courts have no role. However, Judge Carter wanted to gain the assurance that those Constitutional mechanisms are actually in place and that there is a process through which they could be carried out. Congress may be petitioned to redress the grievance.

Judge Carter asked no questions related to Gary Kreep’s assertion that “impeachment” and “incapacity” do not apply because Obama is not really president. I read the lack of such questions as a sign that the Judge doesn’t consider this argument valid.

I think Judge Carter will address both standing and the political question in his order regarding the government’s motion to dismiss. I believe the care he will give each of the issues will insure that his decision will not be overturned on appeal.

Orly of Arc

Orly’s web site has taken on a decidedly evangelical tone of late with two feature articles:

From Reader Bill FitzPatrick

Dear Orly: May the Good Lord Bless and Keep you safe and of sound mind for the task you are undertaking.  Just like our First  Real President George Washington knelt before his battle with the English Crown at our  country’s beginning,

and

Thank you for your prayer, America’s spiritual foundation. Good trumps evil, we will win, I just hope it happens soon, before they destroy this country and it’s [sic] economy

PRAY led by the HOLY SPIRIT TO:

1) Set an impenetrable angelic hedge of protection around District Judge David O. Carter, and attorney Orly Taitz.

2) Confound, and bind the enemy with the light of God through Christ Jesus in us, that the darkness in their false case will be completely exposed to the nation!

3) Deal swiftly when the enemy steps out of these bounds, bind their tongues.

… This is a link to George Washington’s Prayer Journal

The link to the prayer journal is not working, but you can pick it up here. The only extant source for the journal is its inclusion in a work by William J. Johnson: George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919). It has been a number of years since I researched this topic, but my conclusion the last time around was that the GW Prayer Journal is pious fraud. Most mentions of the Prayer Journal on the Internet are found on conservative Christian web sites like this one. Contrary views are found here and here, here, here, here and background here. I put many links to the “anti” side because they are frankly hard to find. Now here’s an interesting statistic, how many Google hits for: “Washington’s prayer journal” Obama? The answer is 6,650. Add “kenya” and you still get 109. Do you see a pattern here?

[Note: I have started including hyperlinks to Orly's web site again, now that the Google malware warning has stopped. I would still recommend running up to date antivirus and anti-malware software when visiting any Internet site (even this one).]