Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed

Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless. …

There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Judge Carter

You can read the rest along with me:

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD by GeorgetownJD

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed

  1. richCares says:

    How will this affect Orly’s letter to the press on her Jan 26 trial date, does this mean the press are not traitors. What a dilemma, poor Orly needs a second paypall button (jerks will donate)

  2. aarrgghh says:

    my vote for money quote, on keyes’ alleged injury-in-fact:

    the Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.

  3. Black Lion says:

    Some other tremendous quotes from Judge Carter’s ruling….

    “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”

    Imagine that. The process of removing the President has already been set forth in the Constitution, and the power lies with Congress. I believe that we have all been saying that for almost the past year.

    Also interesting…

    “Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–-over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

    Perfect. I wonder how Orly and her insane followers are going to spin this order. The Judge was very specific. But so was Judge Land and other judges that have ruled against the birthers and they still keep coming back, like a bunch of cockroaches…The better question is whether or not Orly will acknowledge this defeat…

  4. Whatever4 says:

    The judge refers to Charles Gordon, “Who can be President of the United States: The unresolved Enigma”. Has anyone posted that before?

  5. Low Rider says:

    Birfistan will try to blame all this on the law clerk. That poor guy better change his name and start wearing kevlar, the nuts will be out for blood…

  6. SFJeff says:

    Logical and well spoken.

    Or as John will put it “Judge Carter was clearly being frivolous in his ruling and the only way left to save the Constitution is by an armed coupe”

  7. elmo says:

    My favorite line? The “cut and run” one, about the soldiers trying to avoid their duty with this bogus lawsuit.

  8. jvn says:

    “The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States,but it will leave the issue for the military to resolve.” – Judge Carter

    Here we see the former Marine that the birthers were counting on…

    Quite a quote.

  9. Orly’s ass, meet Judge Carter’s boot.

    Does anyone think a Show Cause Order on sanctions will be coming along soon ?

  10. Paul says:

    Judge land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed), poor little Birthers.

    Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  11. jvn says:

    Well, given the fact that he said “this court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel…” He may just be preparing such an order.

    Maybe he’s waiting to see how she reacts. She has to know from his comments that she might be facing a further fine, so perhaps she will be restrained after this ruling.

    I hope not!


  12. MsDaisy says:

    Yes, and he seemed just a tad bit miffed at the sworn statements he had stating she was badgering her clients to lie to the court. I’m thinking we may see some charges come of that.

  13. Low Rider says:

    I suspect that if Judge Carter were going to issue a show-cause order, he’d have done it with this opinion. I rather suspect that he’ll move on to other work and hope that this case dies a natural death at the 9th Circuit.

  14. AdrianInFlorida says:

    In the immortal words of the Freepers…Woo Hoo!

  15. kiri says:

    Why would/should Obama release his birth certificate or other early records?

    We might imagine these thoughts from Obama:

    1. There is no benefit in releasing documents. Birthers will never be satisfied. If some information seems favorable to me, birthers will say they are fakes and forgeries; if some information seems negative or embarrassing, birthers will say “this is just the tip of the iceberg”, and will demand a new set of investigations. There will be no end to it at all.

    Conspiracy theories never end. See Roswell, New Mexico. They just morph into new conjectures.

    2. Satisfying birthers is futile. Not a one of them voted for me, and no matter what I do they will not support my policies/programs. Appeasing them is a fool’s errand.

    3. Is it a matter of satisfying the Constitution and questions from the American people? No. Birthers are only a small minority. Their concern is not about the Constitution, which I respect and admire; their objective is to destroy. What they want to destroy is nebulous, what they want is cloudy.

    Their generalized anger, paranoia, anxieties, and sense of powerlessness is disturbing. But this is properly a matter for home, church, and mental health professionals.

    4. The birther movement is draining millions of dollars away from election candidates. The ultras are frittering away their energies and making themselves look foolish, as only Orly can do. So long as birthers are occupied, it hinders them getting up to other mischief.

    5. The birthers are having lots of fun with imagining that somehow I will be jailed and having wet-dreams that Sarah Palin will become President. Releasing documents would interfere with their fun fantasies, and it would be unkind of me to injure their fun.

  16. If Orly moves for the judge to recuse himself, calls him a traitor and blathers as usual, I can see sanctions. Otherwise, I think nothing else will come from Judge Carter.

  17. I’d like to count the number of times the Court indicated that the lawsuit asked it to subvert the Constitution.

  18. Bob says:

    Is this the OMG moment we’ve all been waiting for?

  19. Con Rep says:

    “If Orly moves for the judge to recuse himself, calls him a traitor and blathers as usual, I can see sanctions. Otherwise, I think nothing else will come from Judge Carter.”

    I agree. Can she and Lincoln restrain themselves, though? We’ll see soon enough.

  20. thisoldhippie says:

    They already have. From her facebook:

    Michelle Burbules Orly, I am sure Velamoor probably brought Judge Carter’s ruling with him from Perkins Coie. This is just wrong, wrong, wrong! Also since when did votes out trump our Constitution? I feel like am going crazy…. this cannot really be happening! We love you Orly, thank you so much for fighting so hard for us! I know you will not stop until this SOB is out of Office

  21. aarrgghh says:

    oh lovely, i can see where this one’s going … and i think i smell another batshirt in the oven:

    that part did not sound like the same judge carter who presided over the oct. 5th hearing.

    comparing the judge’s signature on the 5 september 8 order setting the scheduling conferance to the on this document, they appear *identical*. now it’s possible that the clerk just pastes a copy of the judges signature into these documents, and if so, then they would be identical, but if he signs them individually, they would not be identical. very similar, but not identical. (i copied the signatures out of the pdf files, and then paste them one above the other in a word document to make the comparson easier.)

  22. Death threats against Judge Carter have started on various forums. Discussion at

  23. Con Rep says:

    Carter emphasized over and over, both at the hearing and in this opinion, that Taitz was to blame for allowing a petty dispute with Kreep to keep her from filing before the inauguration.

    I get the feeling that he would have liked to address the natural-born question, but he couldn’t, because it was too late.

    In fact, as he says in the opinion, if he hadn’t demanded that she serve the papers to the U.S. Attorney at the August hearing, the case would have been dismissed then and there.

    Is Taitz ever going to admit that she sabotaged her own case? That she had, at least on that issue, a judge that wanted to tackle the issue? Don’t hold your breath — she can’t accept blame for anything.

  24. Low Rider says:

    It’s true. Carter is a cyborg, like all other federal judges, controlled by the same international cabal that financed the 9-11 bombings and installed Obama in office. I mean, it’s so OBVIOUS. WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE WAKE UP?

    /tinfoil hat

  25. In my article, Reading Judge Carter, I wrote:

    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.

    And that is what he did.

  26. richCares says:

    from hero to traitor!
    hating Obama causes mental illness as the death threats against Carter suggest. Birhter ignorance is not only pathetic but dangerous.

  27. misha says:

    Thank you. Obama should not give these Luddites one scrap. I enjoy watching them squirm, and Orly/Lincoln/Lucas are adding to the entertainment value.

    If Obama gave them one paragraph, they’d scream bloody murder. The more noise they make, the better for Democrats.

    I just want Beck and Orly together on a show. With his crying, and her hysterics, it would be worth buying the DVD.

    BTW, where was Glenn Beck in 1990? SHOW US YOUR PAPERS BECK!

  28. misha says:

    That’s my favorite quote. I read the whole thing.

  29. SFJeff says:

    Someone with more skills than I should find some of the wonderful Birther quotes extolling how the good Marine/Judge Carter was going to stand up for the Constitution….

  30. wendy says:

    “Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

    Now, maybe they would benefit by actually READING the Constitution, as well as the laws that come FROM it.

  31. Randy says:

    I really loved that judge Carter cited Rhodes v McDonald.

    Whoo Hoo

  32. kimba says:

    All together now birthers, say OMG!

  33. Greg says:

    He might have wanted to address the issue, but filing prior to the inauguration wouldn’t have gotten him there, it would have just required more thinking about the issue of standing vis a vis the political candidates. He’s right that the plaintiff’s calculation would allow any candidate, no matter how frivolous to file an eligibility suit. I imagine that if he actually looked at it, he’d find that there’s a plausibility requirement there – candidates who could plausibly become president if the issue were addressed can pursue the issue. If you’re not on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes, that would be disqualifying.

  34. Greg says:

    I’ve read it, and have a copy, but I got it from Hein, so cannot disseminate it. It’s pretty good.

    Speculations concerning the presidential qualification clause have thus arisen from time to time. The problem has occasionally been mentioned by the courts. It has also provoked discussion of school-boys and scholars and inquiries to various government agencies.

    It was written in response to Romney’s candidacy, and it concluded that the phrase “natural born citizen” had to be understood in the context of the British Common Law that informed it. As such, it was probably meant only to exclude those who were naturalized citizens.

    It gives a very thorough and comprehensive chronology of the history of citizenship. A very good article. 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)

  35. Con Rep says:

    “Now, maybe they would benefit by actually READING the Constitution, as well as the laws that come FROM it.”

    Yes, but first they’d have to read Carter’s opinion. I’m afraid for most of them, it’s a bridge too far.

  36. milspec says:

    The stupid is strong in her.

  37. wendy says:

    well.. of COURSE it is the same Judge Carter. He said he would not rule on technicalities.
    Efforts to overthrow the US govt by the use of rumors and “I found his birth cert on some website”, the explicit standards of separation of powers, the Constitutional statements re WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT…

    THOSE don’t happen to fall under the label of “technicalities”.
    Or maybe the ruling just came too close to Halloween, and she thinks that Carter was really Land in disguise. (did anyone see Land in some coffee shop in Santa Ana?)

  38. Laurie says:

    I loved how Judge Carter repeatedly pointed out that the birthers are the unpatriotic ones — asking him to override the votes of 69 million Americans thus leaving our country defenseless, asking him to ignore constitutional limitations on the power of the judiciary, asking him to allow military personnel to ignore orders to deploy, and accusing judges of treason.

    Yep, he got their number alright

  39. HistorianDude says:

    “The only way left to save the Constitution is by an armed coupe”

    I’m picturing a .50 Caliber mounted on a Shelby Daytona Cobra.


  40. HistorianDude says:

    I’m a Vet. That was my favorite line too.

  41. wendy says:

    I feel like am going crazy…. this cannot really be happening! We love you Orly, thank you so much for fighting so hard for us! I know you will not stop until this SOB is out of Office

    Well, duh, lady… you are right. You ARE going crazy, led by the illustrious Orly.

    Hint… mob rule and/or internet publicity stunts don’t trump the Constitution.

  42. Jeff R says:

    Here’s one for you, posted at a local news forum this past Saturday by a birther who has been convinced that each new suit against Obama would be THE ONE:

    “This Judge Carter is a retired MARINE, and there ain’t NO WAY he’s going to let
    Obama off the hook. The military DESPISES the FAKE.”

  43. Laurie says:

    Oooh — Orly has posted on her website. She says that she intends to write a point-by-point response to Judge Carter’s opinion. She also responds to what she calls “an assassination of her character.”

    She denies that she ever posted anything telling her followers to contact the court. I assume people here actually saw this on her website?

    I am also surprised Judge Carter didn’t mention the fact that she told him at the oral argument that the Rodearmel court found standing, which isn’t true at all. I found that egregious.

  44. Bob says:

    Taitz’s response (on her site).

  45. Lani says:

    Can someone with safe access to Taitz’s website copy her response here? My antivirus program prevents accessing her site.

  46. Texlaw says:

    She has a follower named Gary Willmot who sent her a copy of his letter to Carter. She published Willmot’s letter. That’s pretty “encouraging” IMHO. That is one example I can think of off the top of my head.

  47. misha says:

    “pathetic but dangerous”

    That’s exactly what I’m concerned about. Orly is trying to encourage a lone wolf.

  48. Rita says:

    Leonard McCauley is still being allowed to rant all over her Facebook page, calling President Obama the n-word, calling George Soros a “Hungarian Jew” and Rupert Murdoch an “Australian Jew”. Orly knows he sent that letter to Judge Land, and that he has written all these things on her Facebook page, but she hasn’t even said word one.

  49. Black Lion says:

    From Orly’s Site….

    what doesn’t break us, makes us stronger
    Posted on | October 29, 2009 | 4 Comments

    As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.

    Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”

    While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.

    First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.

    Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?

    There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.

    Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice, when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt

    To be contined…

  50. misha says:

    “did anyone see Land in some coffee shop in Santa Ana?”

    No, but I did see Elvis in the frozen food isle, right next to the image of Mary.

  51. Rickey says:

    Clearly, someone needs to explain the Orly the difference between “loose” and “lose.”

  52. Laurie says:

    Reading the comments on Orly’s site and the Post & Email and other birther sites, I just can’t get over the combination of arrogance and ignorance.

    Even as a lawyer with a regular federal court practice, I don’t just assume I know everything about procedure or how a case ought to turn out. Even if you are immersed in this stuff, you have to constantly consult the rules and the precedents, and you have to constantly check your assumptions. But these people, the vast majority of whom know next to nothing about the law, presume to assert that Judge Carter is clearly in the wrong, a stupid idiot, and/or a traitor to his country. It is mind-boggling to me that they can simply dismiss the judge’s well-reasoned explanation based on precedent about how totally impractical it would be to have one trial judge order a sitting President out of office. (Of course, if they haven’t read the opinion, their willingness to blithely condemn it is even more mind-boggling.)

    The talking point now seems to be that the judge missed the point of Orly’s argument. She is not asking him to remove a sitting President; rather, she is asking for a ruling that he is ineligible so that the Congress can then remove him. But that doesn’t work because (a) according to the Order, the First Amended Complaint actually asks for Obama to be enjoined from making further orders, etc. and (b) Federal court judges don’t issue advisory opinions. They have to look at whether the injury alleged is something they can actually redress — and, in this case, the only way to redress the alleged injury is to remove the President, something no thinking person would want random trial judges around the country to have the power to do.

    I know I keep repeating myself but it is just amazing to me that these people have actually deluded themselves into thinking they have such perfect knowledge of the law that they can condemn an experienced federal court judge for ruling incorrectly and/or “treasonously.” Doesn’t it ever occur to these people that there are good reasons for some of these rules? As Judge Carter said, things like the redressability issue aren’t “technicalities” but integral aspects of the separation of powers.

    Gaaah – these people make me crazy.

  53. Texlaw says:

    That is a common usage of the, er, “less educated” posters on the internet, in my observation.

    What I want to know is how, exactly, does one “sport” 39 social security numbers?

  54. wendy says:

    ah, yes..
    SHE will give an analysis of what Carter said. *shaking head in bewilderment*

    Uh, ms Taitz. You have things a tad backwards, to say the least.
    You clearly have no comprehension of what Carter said, or why he said it.
    If you did, you would shut up and go home.

  55. Texlaw says:

    Well, dear Laurie, these are the same people who will disregard a certified copy of a birth certificate from Hawaii AND the further statement of the Director of records there, while they will jump at the chance to defend numerous Kenyan birth certificates. These are people who have clearly never even read the Constitution, nor did they pay a lick of attention during any social studies or civics class they ever took.

    The thing that really amazes me is that none of them will stop and consider why there is not ONE competent attorney in this country handling these birfer cases. The right wing does have some competent and successful attorneys — Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and yes, even Coulter (although Orly told them Ann’s not a lawyer so they believe it). Yet the only people willing to be associated with this nonsense are total incompetents.

    And yes it is amazing that folks who clearly have not even gotten their GEDs think they know the law. Arrogance and ignorance is a most horrible combination.

  56. Laurie says:

    Too true!!!

  57. Rickey says:

    I’m waiting for someone to claim that the order was issued by an imposter because Judge Carter is being held in a FEMA detention camp.

  58. Orly: I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives.

    I believe Orly has just admitted that the large majority of her plaintiffs (who where reserve military and taxpayers) didn’t have real standing.

    Orly: A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico?

    I feel slighted.

  59. This is a glorious day for common sense and the rule of law over silly windmill tilting with possibly darker motives backing the donkey.

    Something tells me this story isn’t quite over yet, though.

  60. On June 9, Orly published this article:

    Please call the Central district court in CA, the clerk has to issue a default today. He has been dragging his feet since the 06.02.09.

    Commenter Chuck, filled in the phone numbers:

    These are some numbers I found for the Santa Ana Judges associated with this case #:

    Hon. David O. Carter
    Court Clerk: Kristee Hopkins
    Court Reporter: Jane Sutton
    Court Reporter: Debbie Gale
    Courtroom: 9D, Santa Ana
    Telephone: 714-338-4543
    Telephone: 714-558-7755
    Telephone: 714-558-8141

    Court Clerk: Melissa Cash
    Courtroom No.: 6B
    Telephone: 714-338-4756

    Orly then turned Chuck’s comment into its own article.

    Orly’s internal restructuring of her blog has wreaked havoc with search engines and some of her articles too. Generally if you get a page not found linked from a search engine, try manually removing “/blog1” from the URL. If you see something like, change it to

  61. wendy says:

    ranting and raving and gnashing of teeth, how can ANYONE ignore the fraud?

    Psst… it is easy to ignore that which never occurred.
    And no, I suspect it isn’t over.

  62. Yeah we didn’t get any love there, did we 🙂

  63. Slartibartfast says:

    For those of you who enjoy schadenfreude at birther’s expense, here is a deeply ironic post from a birther blog yesterday. Be sure to check out the first few comments.

  64. I’ve updated the Media page with some of the newspaper coverage of the dismissal:

  65. Mario Apuzzo says:


    Your name suggests that you are a lawyer. By the content and logic of your writing, I hate to think how.

  66. Texlaw says:

    Priceless! Scroll down to the last comment (is it yours? Cause it’s great!).

  67. I left this comment over there:

    Carter followed the law and rendered the same as any competent federal judge in the country.

    It never ceases to amaze me that nobody every listens to what these judges are saying. If you don’t like who gets elected, vote for somebody else.

    Come 2012, some candidate will have standing, and then these nonsense lawsuits will start losing on the merits because I assure you, they have no merit.

    [It appears that comment has since been deleted.]

  68. Benji Franklin says:

    Dear Worriers,

    You worry with good cause.

    The Internet has displayed a menacing capacity to assemble “Hell Teams” nationally able to support and advance socially and/or intellectually repugnant causes that could never gain sustaining momentum on any one street corner or public square. It’s not like the eccentrics near population centers who have always crossed paths and occasionally clung to one another. That has previously remained an isolated and infrequent, local phenomenon ; intermittent elbow rubbing, even among equally odd fellows, has needed to have nearly congruent face-to-face anti-social profiles to congeal into the occasional Charles Manson type organization.

    But now we must reckon with the malevolent synergy of a formerly inconsequentially scattered demographic – locally shunned self-perceiving civic superheroes, who imagine that their twisted conclusions derive from superior intelligence, advantaged by a kind of universally indisputable, privileged perspective. They instantly bond with others who, like themselves, see issues with a clarity reserved for those who are not required to take note of reality.
    Astonishingly, the Internet allows these glorifiers of presumption to connect on that basis alone, with others similarly disposed to jump to sensationally aligned conclusions. Sadly, we have discovered in the Birthers the crazy glue that weds strange bedfellows – mutually admired willful Ignorance. Illusory based partnerships may prove fleeting though; witness ongoing the miracle of Birthers at each other’s factional throats. Gary is only the latest legal Kreep Orly has out-plagued with her iconic capacity to misconstrue the Law, vilify opponents, and unsettle mental health professionals. Orly is a Dickens worthy caricature of professionally licensed irrationality. To her, essentially beginning one’s practice of Law by asking SCOTUS to unseat a US President apparently requires only 3 things: 1)a real estate agent’s client-stalking skills to blindside SCOTUS justices during their public appearances with case-related ex parte requests for strategic advice and 2) an online law degrees’ presumptive legal supremacy over documented World History and the informed expert opinion of both the U.S. Government and the non-Birther law establishment and 3) the Constitution of a dentist.

    Benji Franklin

  69. Bob says:

    By the content and logic of your writing, I hate to think how.

    Oh, the irony.

  70. nbc says:

    You’re a funny guy Mario, hilariously irony deficient as well.

  71. nbc says:

    I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing.

    Who? So far lack of standing has been the major reason for courts to dismiss. Orly’s misguided belief that adding more plaintiffs somehow increases her chances for standing are ill founded in reason and logic.

  72. milspec says:

    Why do I think of a lab rat on a crank experiment biting its tail every time I read something from her

  73. myson says:

    4.5million in DC on 12 sept 09 whoa !!!
    Orly really is delusional !!

  74. Slartibartfast says:

    No, I have apparently been banned at drkatesview for posting a calm, reasoned defense of ACORN on her blog. If you are referring to the post by Mike Appleton, he is a regular poster at, a site where I also posted this link.

  75. mheuss says:

    What enables Orly’s minions to keep on keeping on, despite concise, thoughtful demolition of every argument in both Judge Land’s and now Judge’s Carters orders is the fact they simply don’t read them. All they care about is that the case was dismissed – they don’t look at the reasons why.

    It is this lack of curiosity that is most telling – and it is this lack of curiosity that will keep them around for a good deal longer.

  76. Adrianinflorida says:

    She watched a lot of Reverend Ike, telling people to “Loose their money for Jesus” – and him

    Orly needs you to loose your money for her…and the Constitution

    Texlaw: She has a follower named Gary Willmot who sent her a copy of his letter to Carter.She published Willmot’s letter.That’s pretty “encouraging” IMHO. That is one example I can think of off the top of my head.

    Rickey: Clearly, someone needs to explain the Orly the difference between “loose” and “lose.”

  77. Laurie says:

    So yet again, Orly is proven a bald-faced liar.

  78. Laurie says:

    Over at the Free Republic, commenter Starwise speculates that Orly Taitz is a DNC plant who deep-sixed the case on purpose.

    The irony of Taitz’s conspiracy theories being turned back on her is just soooooo delicious!

    *Shivers in delight*

  79. Lupin says:

    A candidate for the Batshirt Awards:

  80. JoZeppy says:

    Are we really suprised Orly lives in a fact optional world?

  81. kimba says:

    I think they will have a tough time making a reasonable argument challenging the eligibility of a man when he is already President.

  82. kimba says:

    I got my morning laugh over at Orly’s place. There’s a post there claiming “every other President gave his birthplace” and then proceeds to give the addresses of the “birthplaces” of all the Presidents, with zip codes!!! Postal codes weren’t introduced until 1943, and the zipcode we know wasn’t implemented until 1963. Talk about “the stupid being strong”.

  83. Black Lion says:

    Also from that cesspool known as Free Republic…It looks like that call for a coup is getting louder….

    To: Tamar1973
    Sounds like passing the buck. Congress says this issue should be resolved in the court. The court says it should be resolved by Congress.
    Only two groups left who can obtain justice. The courts have punted. Separation of powers. Congress LOVES a communist president. Congress is controlled by Communists. So who’s left to save our constitutional republic? One- We the People could storm the White House and Congress and force them into early retirement. Or Two… the successors to George Washington could once again fight tyranny and reestablish our democratic republic. Military coup? Yep. I’m ready to support.

    29 posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:40:12 PM by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)

  84. G says:

    ROTFL! That was priceless.

    Dr. Kate probably needs a neckbrace from the whiplash she just felt when the ruling against Orly came out the same day that her blog post praising the “glory” of Judge Carter and his military background as the “birther savior” went up.

    Oh the sweet irony, indeed!

  85. That’s Charles Kerchner rhetoric, only it’s not true. The Courts are saying the issue (if any) should be resolved by Congress, but the Congress never said it should be resolved by the courts; the Congress already resolved it by certifying the election. If “We the People” want a different resolution, then I point to the 2010 Congressional elections.

  86. kimba says:

    Haven’t they figured out yet our military isn’t going to “coup”? Other than Petraeus and a few left-over neo-con Cheney lapdogs, I think the military generally supports Obama. His Afghan decision will tell the tale. If he doesn’t go for a surge in Afghanistan, then the military is going to love him: the troops being removed from Iraq over the next 2 years will be coming home.

  87. Black Lion says:

    Or from the Dr Kate blog another nefarious connection to the great conspiracy….Do you think that these people also believe in “little green men” from outer space?

    October 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm
    Perhaps the clerk was placed there for intimidation purposes like the black panthers placed at different voting places during the G.E. to intimidate voters and turn them away especially black voters. “You better vote such and such a way or get the H— outta here.” drkate, I think this coup is like a huge spider with large legs and a web that stretches everywhere. We are being held hostage but do not know it yet. Too many people in high up places are being intimidated and threatened and in some instances being killed for what they do or do not know. I don’t think the coup is 100 % complete just yet, but it is happening at a rapid pace.

  88. G says:

    Wow…that is just too delusional and full of crazy to even follow. That is beyond insanity.

  89. Black Lion says:

    There of course was the usual borderline insane rantings of “lame cherry”…

    Some quotes from his innane rantings…

    “There is no one in the White House who is above the Law of America. Judge Carter has hinted that a person in the Oval Office has carte blanche to steal, rape, molest children and murder at length, with only the Congress being the body to remove said person.”

    “As stated, Judge Carter knows all of this, and it is beneath his intelligence to put forth this simpleton ruling which sullies his calling as a United States Marine.”

    “America has ceased to exist as a Republican form of Government. It is not some socialist orb or even a communist clique anymore, all it is in the tarnished souls groping about at Obama midnight is a 3rd world despotry where kangaroo courts, deputy despots and Obamalings now rule not by law, but by fiction.”

  90. ballantine says:

    Gotta love Carter taking a little jab at the wingers saying “We the People” elected the president.

  91. milspec says:

    big time crazyat that site, thanks for the laffs

  92. milspec says:

    Orly they were not “letters” they were sworn affidavits

  93. Texlaw says:

    Really! Unlike Mario, I analyze my cases before I file them, resulting in successful litigation. Imagine that.

  94. JoZeppy says:

    I guess they don’t realize it’s the judge that picks and hires who his law clerks are going to be?

    And funny how the possibility that the reason all the judges come to the same conclusion must be intimidation. Couldn’t be because, perhaps they’re just wrong on the law, now could it?

  95. Mike says:

    I was about to bring that to everyone’s attention… Kind of a douche, ain’t she?

  96. JoZeppy says:

    I was thinking “uneducated idiot who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” But I suppose douche works too.

  97. Black Lion says:

    Agreed…douche or douchebag is sufficent…

  98. Black Lion says:

    It looks like Leo has come out of seclusion to comment on Judge Carter’s ruling…

    “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.”

    “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.”

    “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.”

    I know Leo tries to seem smart and pontificates on his blog, but I have a question. What is a “citizen by statute”? Don’t tell me he is rehashing his lame “14th amendment citizen” crap. What is the over/under that Leo ever actually gets off his but and files an actual case?

  99. Black Lion says:

    I sometimes can’t follow where some of the birthers are going with their posts but this one is more confusing than usual…

    Carlyle Says:

    October 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM
    Leo –

    Does this information help with anything you are doing?

    It seems that the DOH is converging to a common process for answering these requests. Here is a reply I received upon asking for “any and all Index Data for any and all filings related to Death Records for Madeline Dunham and Stanley Ann Dunham”.

    In response to your UIPA request, the following index data is provided:



    Based on this, and other reports post on TerriK, it seems that they are now giving only summaries of the Index Data, not the Index Data itself. Rather than providing an answer, they are essentially just repeating the question in statement form.

    Index Data is like the card catalog in the library. If you look for a subject like, say, “Civil War”, you will see many cards indicating the many books on the subject. What we are seeing instead is simply “Civil War? Yes we have that”.

    This is surely not the intent of the UIPA laws. Any librarian who pulled this stunt would surely be fired.


    More SUMMARY DATA instead of the requested INDEX DATA.
    Note that in this particular request, I tried to force’ the issue.


    Under the provisions of UIPA and Hawaii statutes, I hereby request ALL Index Data for any records you have for Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro (including any reasonable alternate spellings for Barry and Soetoro).

    I am a computer scientist and very familiar with the concepts of manual and automated data repositories. Please do not send me broad categories of index data’. I need the lowest level and most complete index data that you would get if you performed a search for the above names.

    At a minimum, every document or note in the files or records must have the date, the name or purpose of the document or note, and a link to that actual information.


    In response to your UIPA request, the following index data is provided:



    [ed. they are receiving hundreds of requests per day I’ve been informed. more on this down the road.]

    To me it seems like their request shows that there was a birth of an individual named Barack Hussein Obama II and that that his parents were actually married. Is it that the birthers don’t like the answers they are getting?

  100. Black Lion says:

    Whoever is writing on that site has some serious problems. It looks like he is still in some LSD induced coma where he believes his delusions are real…I mean that made Orly actually seem lucid…Which we all know is a real stretch…

  101. Whatever4 says:

    I’m baffled by this comment on LameCherry:

    “He alone knows in that order, that specifically a President and any civilian in control of the Department of Defense as Commander in Chief, is also under the mandates of the Military Code, in a President can in fact face Court Martial, because he is a person of both civilian and military jurisdiction.”

    That a President is subject to court-martial makes no sense at all, and sort of defines a military coup, doesn’t it?

  102. wendy says:

    speaking of any repression…
    I posted a statement at an alternate site last night…
    which was deleted by this a.m.
    In other words… people WANT TO HANG ON to their fabrications, and eliminate any views or commentary that might even dispute them.
    Shoulda known better.

  103. wendy says:

    goes back to the (false) idea that birth records are public documents… which they are NOT. They do NOT FALL into Freedom of Information laws.
    I don’t care what the guy understands about computer systems/storage. That has no relevance to legal standards. Hawaii is not that dumb.

  104. SFJeff says:

    I love the logic here. We must save the Constitution from Communists, even though it is completely constitutional for someone to be a Communist and be elected to office.

    That is the glory of our Constitution- someone can be a Communist, a Neo-Con or a KKK member and still be eligible to be elected. The voters are the ones supposed to be making the judgement, not the military or a small faction of extremists.

  105. I must add that birth records are regulated by state laws, and birth records are public records in some states (e.g. California).

  106. thisoldhippie says:

    In many states death records also are NOT public record. Georgia, for instance.

  107. AdrianInFlorida says:

    They’re just making it up as they go along, Whatever4, you can’t put too much faith in anything on their Sedition Clubhouses.

  108. Rickey says:

    They’re not public records in New York, either. In addition, death certificates for people who die in New York City (which includes the boroughs) are kept by the city’s Department of Health, whereas death certificates for people who die outside of New York City are kept the the state.

  109. Expelliarmus says:

    Not Leo’s view – but a “statutory citizen” (or “citizen by statute”) is one who derives citizenship by act of law but not under the Constitution. The most common category is the children of US Citizen parents who are born abroad — the law has changed repeatedly over the years as to the circumstances for these children to be and to remain citizens – and in at least one case, the US Supreme Court held that because this type of citizenship is not Constitutionally-derived, it can be lost in ways that would not apply to someone who was born within the U.S. (Typically the laws have required the born-abroad child to do something after birth to retain or claim citizenship, such as live in the US for a set time after birth — again, the precise requirements have changed over the years).

    It is because of this statutory vs. Constitutional distinction that there is a bona fide issue as to whether someone like John McCain — born in Panama — is “natural born”. This is an issue which causes some disagreement among legal scholars.

    However, Leo Donofrio is obsessed over the notion that someone born a dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen — and there is nothing in either statutory or Constitutional law that would support that conclusion.

  110. Bob Weber says:

    What’s especially notable about the Freep thread is the birfers complaining that the press merely reports the news and doesn’t investigate the birfer claims for them.

    Birfers are textbook passive-agressives: They don’t want to tear themselves away from their computers and the sack of Cheetos and go out and do any actual research. I was banned from FreeRepublic for suggesting ways they could look for real evidence for their claims.

  111. Bob Weber says:

    As I commented upthread, Freepers on the whole are lazy passive-agressives long on talking but short on doing. (This is a good thing.) There’s no danger of any kind of mass action, but there’s always the danger of a “lone nut”.

  112. Black Lion says:

    Thanks for clearing that up. But Leo’s conclusion is still faulty, correct? I see him somehow aruging that there must be some sort of third type of citizen then because how could Obama be born in HI and not be a natural born citizen according to his theory?

  113. sarina says:

    I have to post a comment I saw from a birther his name is “MrNaturalBorn” Quote:

    “Judge Carter gave some clues on the Usurper in the Whitehouse.

    Basically, he said he did not want to use his signature to over throw an election. You can not use any signature unless the facts in discussion are TRUE. You read into his comment he believes Obama is ineligible to the office BUT he does not want to or can not be the one to nullify the election.

    Carter also stated that the road to remove Obama was through the QUO WARRANTO statues which is how Courts remove a Usurper from office.”

  114. ballantine says:

    But since Congress only has the power to naturalize, why would “statutory” be different than “naturalized.” Children of citizens born abroad were made citizens through naturalization acts, although there was always a debate as to whether they were natural born under the common law.

  115. She’s so scatter-brained that she may well have forgotten.

  116. Expelliarmus says:

    Leo has invented the 2-parents-must-be-citizens requirement — so he is dead wrong on that count.

    I’d note that Leo also contends that John McCain was also ineligible, due to his Panamanian birth – and on that one, Leo is half-right. I say half-right because McCain is indeed a statutory but not Constitutional citizen — McCain’s citizenship depends entirely on the federal law governing births in Panama to citizen parents. Technically, McCain’s real problem is that his citizenship was uncertain at the time of birth, but resolved through the enactment of a retroactive statute that went into effect about a year after his birth– that law made it clear that he was a citizen… but left open the question of whether he was “born” a citizen.

    But Leo is only half-right about McCain because there are arguments to be made either way — so McCain’s status is indeed unresolved.

    My personal opinion is that within this gray area, Congress has the authority to define “natural born” — not the Courts. The rationale behind that can be seen in Judge Carter’s opinion, where he mentions the long history of Congress defining the rules for statutory citizenship. In my opinion Carter correctly sees the term “natural born” to encompass both statutory and Constitutional citizens, so long as the citizenship is automatic by reason of birth status as opposed to naturalization.

  117. Expelliarmus says:

    You are forgetting that prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was NO form of Constitutional citizenship. Laws governing citizenship at birth can and did vary somewhat among the states.

    The term “naturalization” generally is understood to mean, the process by which a non-citizen becomes a citizen at some time after birth. Whereas “native-born” or “natural born” generally means the citizenship that is automatic by virtue of the circumstance of birth.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 made clear that Congress then thought that it was empowered to define the circumstances of “natural born” citizenship as well as naturalization — and that power has never been challenged in any Court.

  118. wendy says:

    no surprise here… that NO MATTER WHAT Carter says, they are grabbing to find a line that is “in their favor”. Just as they did with the scheduling, and conveniently forgetting that the other side had not given any response.. thus, the Judge COULD NOT MAKE any ruling. Kind of that silly “the other side has the right to say something” rule.
    Now, it could be me who is wrong. What I hear Carter saying is “you are lying as to your intent, you are not concerned with facts directly related to Obama but want to overthrow the whole administration/election..and damned if you are gonna trick me into your stunt”.

  119. wendy says:

    have looked and your comment seems accurate as they have “informational” certificates. Personally, since one reason to avoid making certs public is protect from id theft (ie using mom’s maiden name). So, Calif is kinda putting people out there at risk, I think.
    My main focus is years of using birth records for genealogy, and that ALMOST ALL states only allow access to those after a minimum time, or limit access to newer ones to specified family members or legal authority.

  120. wendy says:

    I ran into the reaction from Pamela Barnett:

    o 7:28 pm October 30, 2009
    o P. Barnett wrote:

    I looked for many attorneys to represent us pro bono in Barnett v. Obama… Taitz is one of only a handful of attorneys in the country that puts love of the Constitution and our country above love of money.

    So screw off all of you lazy liberal scum bag attorneys that only care about themselves.


    Carter’s argument for dismissal is not keeping with the job of the judiciary branch of our form of government. The judiciary is required to hear cases brought to them on the merits according to Marshall.

    Evidence Obama has produced to prove he is a natural born citizen – a fraudulent Hawaii COLB – see the PACER docket.

    Signed, Disabled Veteran CPT Pamela Barnett

  121. Pamela Barnett: The judiciary is required to hear cases brought to them on the merits according to Marshall.

    To paraphrase Judge Carter: John Marshall is dead.

  122. There is an ongoing debate over whether open vital statistics (California is by no means the only state that has public records) contribute to identity theft. I don’t take a position on that question.

    I do say that identity verification is pretty primitive right now.

  123. I’ve never been able find a comprehensive list, but I think there are around a dozen states where vital records are open.

  124. wendy says:

    you don’t think it might be helpful to explain the definition of PROOF to ms Barnett, do ya?

  125. Benji Franklin says:

    Dear Expelliarmus,

    Thanks for your many well-informed contributions here. Setting aside for a moment any declaration of precisely what the Framers meant by their Article 2 use of Natural Born Citizen” relating to Presidential eligibility, I would like to argue for an important clarifying perspective distinction concerning how a child “becomes” a “Natural Born Citizen” no matter which interpretation (formula of NBC requirements) is applied.

    For any child, “Natural Born Citizenship” is a derivative condition that is said to “naturally” attach to the child at the moment of birth. But for any/every argued interpretation of what creates Natural Born Citizenship, we ascertain the existence of that condition for a particular child by referring that particular NBC interpretation’s checklist of condition and circumstance requirements not to the child at all, but instead to one or both parents! For example, Birth location is where THE MOTHER is at the time of birth! If (as with the Birther’s 2 parent citizen definition) a particular NBC interpretation relies on a particular legal status for either or both parents, then it can actually be those U.S. and/or foreign statutes which designated the citizenship, marital, and legal parent status, OF THE PARENTS, which are, as they differ from year to year and country to country, redefining who can be (by that NBC formula) born to those parents as a Constitutional Natural Born U.S. citizen and accordingly, who can be President.

    Judge Carter was only exposing the tip of the iceberg when he asserted Congress has changed the definition in one particular instance. Obviously in reckoning the citizenship of the child’s foreign-born father, for example, other countries’ laws defining bigamy, paternity, residency, domicile, visiting student-status, legal marriage, etc. would all have the potential to ALTERNATE in the way their involvement in the contemplation of the PARENT’S status DETERMINED the derivative designation of U.S. “Natural Born Citizen” (or NOT) which we calculate the child is entitled to (OR NOT) at the moment of birth!

    This I believe is the lack of Constitutional “Bedrock” which Judge Carter was referring to; such inconsistent laws have already changed the effective meaning of NBC many times for many potential candidates. Ironically, this tampering with any imagined original intent of the Framers is minimized in the case of using “born inside the country” i.e. “Native Birth” as the determining factor, since the specification of “location” of birth is not so fickly modified by a host of changing statutes. So maximizing fidelity to the Framer’s intent is yet another argument in favor of equating “native birth” with “natural born” for Constitutional purposes.

    What do you think?

    Benji Franklin

  126. Expelliarmus says:

    I agree that equating native birth with natural birth is consistent with the framer’s intent — but we know from the 1790 Naturalization Act that they ALSO would consider children born abroad to US Citizens to be “natural born”. (Given the timing of the passage of the act, it should be viewed as something consistent with the Framers’ understanding of the concept of citizenship).

    So we still come back to: “natural born” = “citizen at birth” (or citizen from birth).

  127. British common law made naturalized subjects: subjects from birth. I understand that “natural born” is used to distinguish between subjects at birth (natural born) and subjects from birth (naturalized). If the framers (many British trained lawyers) agreed with this concept, then they would have meant that “natural born citizen” referred to anyone who was a citizen at birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 made the children of citizens born outside the country citizens at birth (in fact) and labeled these “natural born citizens”. No change has been made by Congress in the concept of natural born citizenship. The Congress did rightly and properly declare the conditions under which someone is born a citizen. I believe that the naturalization power of Congress extends to legislating who is a citizen at birth (and the first Congress who we can reasonably assume thought in line with the framers since many of whom were in the Congress, agreed since they legislated precisely this, and have done so ever since).

    While the list of circumstances under which a person is born a citizen have changed over the years, the underlying requirement, which framer Pinckney called “attachment to the country”, is met by anyone who can truthfully say: “I have been citizen of the United States my whole life.” It is further my contention that Congress can make no law that conveys natural born citizenship retroactively.

  128. JoZeppy says:

    Why am I not suprised birthers misread a very simple quote. Does she not understand the meaning of the opening phase of the quote, “It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not” or the phase “to usurp that which is not given” in “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” For the court would be committing “treason to the constitution” by hearing these cases on the merits, as the court does not have jurisdiciton. The language seems simple enough to me. Amazing how they seem to miss the meaning of the whole quote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.