Obama in Default, Court Case to Proceed!

[MonsterMark]

On Yahoo... I guess it is still being "SNOPED"...

Obama is in default and will it progress without hindrance this time?

In what ultimately could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California has planned a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.

The hearing was for a default order against Obama, because although notified of the action, Obama's attorneys did not make an appearance at the first hearing.

The judge said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.

While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president. The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.

Anyones guesses as to the outcome?

 

[luxuryrules]

Anyones guesses as to the outcome?

Obama's lawyers will bully the prosecution into dropping the case by threatening to bail out the DA's office using Federal funds.

Then, the left wing media will cover up the whole ordeal with a large campaign intended to kiss Obama's rear end and portray him as a hero for surviving another attempt to remove him from office.

After that, the aliens we are keeping at Area 51 will be let loose on the American population as a distraction from the declassified documents showing that JFK was actually assassinated by the CIA.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, no...

This is what happened yesterday...

But others present for the hearing Monday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana stressed that the case remains a long way from ever getting a full airing in court and may never get to that point.

That’s not quite the way Asst. U.S. Atty. David DeJute heard the judge’s comments. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said that “the judge did make a bunch of comments about having the matter correctly and thoroughly aired, once and if they got to the merits of the actual lawsuit, which was not the subject of today's discussion."

The key word is “if,” Mrozek stressed. “We're literally at procedural grounds at this point in time," he said.

At a previous hearing, Carter had ruled that Taitz had not properly served the case on Obama. In Monday's hearing, both Taitz and DeJute tried to prematurely argue the merits of the case. Carter, a former marine, told both parties that the case could easily be tied up for months or another year on procedural technicalities. A better approach would be for Taitz just to file the paperwork so that the case could proceed without more delays, the judge said.

So, the judge didn't say that the case had merit - he said 'if' it had 'merit' that the points within the lawsuit would get aired.

But at this point the case still won't be heard any time soon, because once again the papers were improperly filed. That is the point that DeJute was making - it was still not given a place on the docket because of procedural issues with the paperwork.

Maybe these people should hire a real attorney...

Or maybe a 'real attorney' wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

 

[fossten]

Ah, no...


That’s not quite the way Asst. U.S. Atty. David DeJute heard the judge’s comments. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said that “the judge did make a bunch of comments about having the matter correctly and thoroughly aired, once and if they got to the merits of the actual lawsuit, which was not the subject of today's discussion."
...
So, the judge didn't say that the case had merit - he said 'if' it had 'merit' that the points within the lawsuit would get aired.

Ah, no...

You misrepresented (as usual) the quotation.

The 'if' in question doesn't refer to merits, but to 'getting to' the merits. In fact, his quotation assumes the case does have merits.

FAIL!

 

[MonsterMark]

And she conveniently left out the point that the judge said all that needed to be done was to file it again.

This judge is an ex-military guy and he doesn't like the idea of taking orders from a usurper either.

 

[foxpaws]

They are still in the procedural stage... The judge will review the merits (which in law means the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter) or lack thereof if the case actually get filed correctly.

That is the once and if part Foss. The judge hasn't even looked at the merit part of the case because the paperwork isn't correct yet. He won't look at the case to determine if it has merit until the case is properly filed.

The judge can't review the merits of the case until it makes it to the docket. Once it is on the docket he will then review the case, and if it has merit at that point it will continue. He was stating a generality that occurs with all cases. If gets to his bench, he will review it and see if it has merit, and at that time, the points in the case will get their fair airing. But until it gets through the procedural crap, he won't waste his time. Tons of cases are filed that are thrown out because of procedure - judges don't give them a second glance until they have to, they don't have the time.

Bryan, he hasn't review the case yet - he can't. He can't review the case on its merits or lack of merits until it is properly filed.... Once it is properly filed, he will look at it then. Then it will get its fair airing.

 

[fossten]

They are still in the procedural stage... The judge will review the merits (which in law means the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter) or lack thereof if the case actually get filed correctly.

That is the once and if part Foss. The judge hasn't even looked at the merit part of the case because the paperwork isn't correct yet. He won't look at the case to determine if it has merit until the case is properly filed.

The judge can't review the merits of the case until it makes it to the docket. Once it is on the docket he will then review the case, and if it has merit at that point it will continue. He was stating a generality that occurs with all cases. If gets to his bench, he will review it and see if it has merit, and at that time, the points in the case will get their fair airing. But until it gets through the procedural crap, he won't waste his time. Tons of cases are filed that are thrown out because of procedure - judges don't give them a second glance until they have to, they don't have the time.

Translation: Whoops, I didn't think this through!

At NO time did the judge ever say anything negative about the merits of the case, despite your attempts at spin. You're trying to argue that he questioned the merits of the case without even viewing them. You mischaracterized what he said, and now you're stomping your foot trying to assert your way out of your logical hole. Keep trying, it's amusing.

 

[foxpaws]

Translation: Whoops, I didn't think this through!

At NO time did the judge ever say anything negative about the merits of the case, despite your attempts at spin. You're trying to argue that he questioned the merits of the case without even viewing them. You mischaracterized what he said, and now you're stomping your foot trying to assert your way out of your logical hole. Keep trying, it's amusing.

Translation: Whoops - I don't have an original thought. How about posting one of shag's stomping babies - it would fall in line with your current lack of originality.

Foss, I didn't say that the judge said anything negative, or positive, how could he - he hasn't seen the case yet - this is what I said...

So, the judge didn't say that the case had merit - he said 'if' it had 'merit' that the points within the lawsuit would get aired.

It was you that seemed to overlook that the judge has yet to view the merits of the case...

The 'if' in question doesn't refer to merits, but to 'getting to' the merits. In fact, his quotation assumes the case does have merits.

So, it appears that you were the one that didn't quite understand that until the procedural issues get resolved, the judge won't look at the merits of the case. Until I pointed out that fact in post #6 you were going to go your merry way believing that he had looked at the merits of the case.

Once again... you need to think things through Foss.

 

[MonsterMark]

Now back on point.

Do marcus and foxpaws care to explain why the military revoked U.S. Army Reserve Major Stefan Cooks deployment orders?

Care to explain why the Obama administration is trying to quitely sweep this under the rug?

I'm waiting with baited breath. If a lowly reserve major can bring down the almighty Obama, can't wait to see what he does when our enemies start taking pot shots at us.

 

[foxpaws]

Now back on point.

Do marcus and foxpaws care to explain why the military revoked U.S. Army Reserve Major Stefan Cooks deployment orders?

Care to explain why the Obama administration is trying to quitely sweep this under the rug?

I'm waiting with baited breath. If a lowly reserve major can bring down the almighty Obama, can't wait to see what he does when our enemies start taking pot shots at us.

I thought we were talking about the court case in California - maybe Major Cooks' predicament should be a new thread...

 

[MonsterMark]

I thought we were talking about the court case in California - maybe Major Cooks' predicament should be a new thread...

Major Cook refuse to deploy. One day later, the military rescinded the orders. Why didn't they just throw him in the Gulag?

Start thinking foxpaws. I have faith that you will eventually see the light.:gr_hail:

Still can't tell you how disappointed I am with my fellow conservatives here on this board that refused to fight the good fight on principle.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Thanks guys!


A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

We are there. Congrats.

 

[Marcus]

Now back on point.

Do marcus and foxpaws care to explain why the military revoked U.S. Army Reserve Major Stefan Cooks deployment orders?

Care to explain why the Obama administration is trying to quitely sweep this under the rug?

I'm waiting with baited breath. If a lowly reserve major can bring down the almighty Obama, can't wait to see what he does when our enemies start taking pot shots at us.

Care to tell me why Mr. Cook signed up for a class action suit in February 2009 challenging Obama's birth AND THEN signed up for duty in May 2009 for a post he can get out of "up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty"? Looks like he joined just so he could pull this publicity stunt. He's an attention whore.

Given the guy's openness about his opinions on Obama, maybe the army simply didn't want this treasonous a$$hole going around spreading discontent among the ranks. That's entirely plausible don't you think?

 

[Calabrio]

Still can't tell you how disappointed I am with my fellow conservatives here on this board that refused to fight the good fight on principle.

You have to pick your fights, and the resources available are finite.

Which is a greater assault on the country, the natural born citizen definition or nationalizing health care? Cap and trade? Global governance? The destruction of the dollar? Nationalizing industry? The unholy fascist relationship that is forming between the federal government and industry?

Even if we had a court that would find him ineligible to serve, that wouldn't undue all that they are doing.

Personally, I think he's content and prepared to be a one term President. So if he crashes and burns in 2012, but succeeds with the sweeping remaking of the country, he'll consider himself a success.

 

[MonsterMark]

Looks like he joined just so he could pull this publicity stunt. He's an attention whore.

LMAO.

Looks like you're getting scared that the patriots are getting close.

 

[Marcus]

LMAO.

Looks like you're getting scared that the patriots are getting close.

So I will assume you can't come up with a better explanation.

Yeah I'm shaking in my shoes. :sleep:

 

[MonsterMark]

So I will assume you can't come up with a better explanation.

Real Simple.

Every court that has had this 'issue' come before them has claimed the "plaintiffs" didn't have standing. Then it was discovered that military people have 'standing' and this is the first of many lawsuits using the military issue that are underway.

You obviously never took the time the read the sticky on the Eligibility Primer.
If you had, you'd know what is going on.

 

[fossten]

Still can't tell you how disappointed I am with my fellow conservatives here on this board that refused to fight the good fight on principle.

"The good fight" as you put it is a loser. Your guilt trip notwithstanding, I'd like to politely remind you of the massive amounts of name calling I endured from 'my fellow conservatives' during the primaries as I supported Ron Paul.

In short, I can't believe you have the gall to whine about this.

 

[ford nut]

"The good fight" as you put it is a loser. Your guilt trip notwithstanding, I'd like to politely remind you of the massive amounts of name calling I endured from 'my fellow conservatives' during the primaries as I supported Ron Paul.

In short, I can't believe you have the gall to whine about this.

I thought all of that was water under the bridge.
Seems like you do hold a grudge after all.
Humm.... not surprised.

No fun when your the can that gets kicked eh?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I have read many post where Foss, Foxpaws. Marcus, Calibro, Ford nut, and Monstormark respond.
Is there some reason why all of you can not stay on topic of the original post?
Why can't you all stay on topic instead of bashing each other like a bunch of immature school kids?
Read an original post, study it before responding, and let's have an honest debate about the subject of that post.
This personal bashing is not at all constructive, and it needs to come too an end.
Why not for once, show the rest of the forum members that you are adults.
I for one would welcome it.
Now that I have interupted the original subject of this thread, let's get back to the original thread.
I think this court case regarding Obama is dead.
If it had any merit, it would have been heard long ago.
Even Justice Roberts who was given a brief at a public gathering he attended months ago, hasn't taken any action on it.
This will never come to be in any court in this country.
No matter what you read on other internet sites, the outcome is the same.
It will never be tried in any court.
Do any of you honestly think ,with this country in the financial toilet, Iran developing a necular weapon, North Korea playing footsie with the same, health care in shambles, and politicians who don't give a rat's a$$,the courts are going to rid this country of it's leader?
If you do, you are living in la la land.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

Do any of you honestly think ,with this country in the financial toilet, Iran developing a necular weapon, North Korea playing footsie with the same, health care in shambles, and politicians who don't give a rat's a$$,the courts are going to rid this country of it's leader?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You spelled it out right there. That's exactly why we should get rid of der leader.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You spelled it out right there. That's exactly why we should get rid of der leader.

You are exactly right, and I share your feelings but, it is not going to happen while this country is involved with these problems of international and domestic instability.
Do you really think Biden would be a better alternative?
That is who we would be left with, and God forbid, he assume the presidency, look at who would have to take his place should something happen to him.
Now THAT is scary.
I think I would rather take my chances with the current president than the two alternatives right behind him, should he be removed from office.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

So, in one day the military revokes the guy's order to deploy, he gets fired by his company and the Judge basically calls the suit moot since he no longer has to deploy.

Somehow this is not news?

Guess we'll have to move higher up in the military.

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status

 

[Marcus]

So, in one day the military revokes the guy's order to deploy, he gets fired by his company and the Judge basically calls the suit moot since he no longer has to deploy.

Somehow this is not news?

Guess we'll have to move higher up in the military.

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status

You still don't get it. The man has been publicly saying that Obama is not the CIC and that he will not follow orders. Do you think the army wants that kind of nutjob (let alone one in a position of authority) around the troops? There's nothing mysterious about him having his orders revoked. The army doesn't want hi sorry ass!

As for him getting fired, he works for a contractor to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is within its rights to tell that company who it can and cannot have working there. Is it retribution? Why the hell not? It serves him right for being a dumbass.

 

[MonsterMark]

It serves him right for being a dumbass.

And look at all the dumbasses Obama has appointed as CZARS with no election and no responsibility to the voters. Sieg Heil !!!

 

[Marcus]

Change the subject much?