Judge Carter dismisses California eligibility challenge
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily
Another court has refused to hear a challenge to Obama’s eligibility, the best way forward is Impeachment proceedings
A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama’s eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama’s campaign.
The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.
A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
As WND has reported, Federal Election Commission records for "Obama for America" show that the lobby organization has paid Perkins Coie exactly $1,666,397.01 since the 2008 election.
"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."
Related posts:
- Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
- Obama eligibility case survives 1st court test
- Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility
- Court: No need for state to check prez’ eligibility
- Judge Says Obama’s Bid to Suspend Gitmo Hearings Is ‘Unreasonable’
Tags: Barack Obama, birth Certificate, Eligibility
October 30th, 2009 at 3:57 am
This a serious issue, that is once again treated like a joke. After a court date in Jan. now to be dismissed. Such cowardice, no backbone. Why is it that no one can take a stand, and stand your ground, Unbelievable !!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
i agree but possibly somewhere else other than CA
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Morning
Time for all to stand up and say enough is enough and request it be exposed
Ebyrd USA Retired
November 4th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
http://www.meetup.com/Natural-Born-Citizen-Coalit...
November 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I find it sad that people are looking at the fact that this man has taken the office at a time that the country has gone down hill. And people are saying that he is the anti-christ, satan, muslum, whatever. I think that if he was not black that this would not be such an issue. This country still has a long way to grow.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Aaron, it doesn't matter that he's black. it only matters that he meets the requirements to be the President of the United States. What happens if he is not a natural born citizen? If he is not a natural born citizen then our constitutional government is in crisis. And this is a very serious matter. So why not just produce the documentation before a court or before the Senate and put the matter to rest. And then the birthers will have no choice but to shut up. But for purposes of constitutional integrity I say this should be examined by whatever legal authority is responsible for examining it.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
And I might also add that the courts are not acting in the interests of preserving the constitution by dismissing this case.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
STRUNK v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE – 27 – Letter from Christopher Earl Strunk – gov.uscourts.dcd.1345
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832918/STRUNK-v-U-S-D...
A Quo Warranto is pending in Washington, DC against OBAMA.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
20091107
KEYES|BARNETT (CODY JUDY) – MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER ) AND AMENDMENT TO THE ) CIVIL RIGHTS / FE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22291433/KEYES-BARNETT-...
November 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I may have misinterpreted the constitution,but as I understand it the fact that his father was a citizen of a sovereign nation(England) he could not be a "natural born citizen" only a US citizen.If his father had been an alien then he would have been a "natural born citizen"! This is assuming he was actually born here!
Tom
November 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As I understand it, since his father was a British citizen at the time of birth, then he was, has been, is, and will always be a British citizen by birth. No act of Congress, no actions by Obama, and nothing the British Parliment, can do will change his condition of birth, therefore Barrack Hussein Obama II, is not, cannot be, and never will be a natural born US citizen. He is as much a British citizen, as he is genetically black. Only God may take what God has given.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:07 am
More GOP neonazis arguing nonsense as usual. Next time you want to file a lawsuit, do it based upon facts, not upon your biased, ridiculous conspiracy theories.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:11 am
What conspiracy theory?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
borderraven – have you actually read the complete gibberish of sovereign citizen Christopher-Earl: Strunk © ?
Your neo-Nazi leanings are well known. Time for you to slink into the background and go back to mummy and daddy's basement.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Biff Guiznot, what are "neo-Nazi leanings"?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I am only trying to help interpret the 14th Amendment. I've spent time
reading legal definitions, laws, SCOTUS, English Common Law, and
Vattel's Law of Nations.
14th Amendment (8USC1401): "1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States…"
The 14th Amendment breaks down like this:
a. In the USA
1. born *or*
2. naturalized
b. *and* subject to
1. Jurisdiction of the USA
A. territorial (location)
B. personal (blood)
c. *are* citizens of the USA
See also:
8 USC
8 USC 1101
8 USC 1401
8 USC 1408
8 USC 1409
November 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
You are absolutely correct, apparently they came up with the right amount of money for Judge Carter to dismiss the case that was to important to not ignore. So much for Semper Fi. He turned his back on America.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Judge Carter's ruling opens the door to an appeal. Gary Kreep has filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit, and Orly has new information and filed a motion with Judge Carter or reconsideration.
Be patient!
December 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Guestintheknow, It's always amusing how people who feel threatened by facts begin using terms like neonazis. Look, the bottom line is Obabma is obviously hiding things such as his birth certificate and school records. Why? Apparently he has good reason. Wake up!
December 12th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Just common sense would persuade any commonsensical person of the grave deceit and total lack of transparency perpetrated upon the American people by the golden tonqued con artist who hood-winked us all and cares nothing for the Constitution. nor for America. He is bent on the destruction of America and world government. He has demonstrated the power to control every branch of government and all legal entities in America today Yes, he could well be the anti-Christ. Most Democrats seem entirely under his spell.
Earle
January 9th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
No one has ever said that B. Hussein Obama was not an American citizen – however tenuous that assertion may be. It appears the majority of Americans, illiterate as most of us are, mesmerized by American Idol and mainstream news drivel, do NOT understand the difference between American Citizen and Natural Born American Citizen. The concepts and definitions are very different, and the latter is clearly defined in the Federalist Papers. These are the papers that help us to understand the language, intent, and meaning of our Constitution. Not only must a candidate be born in the United States of America, but BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens to satisfy the requirement of being a Natural Born U.S. citizen.
This issue has nothing to do with partisanship (corrupt as BOTH sides are), it has to do with a constitutional crisis, and the courts do not want an avoidable firestorm visited on our nation by having to make a decision on this matter.
I paraphrase Judge Carter in that he stated it appears there was warrant for the judicial system to rule on eligibility BEFORE the election, but that now that B. Hussein Obama is the President, one must use constitutional mechanisms to remove him. Interestingly, when the subject came up during the election campaign with its doe-in-the-headlights, Woodstock-like media frenzy, the world was told the eligibility question was moot, because he hadn't even won, nor was he the president. It is now apparent the government intends to take full advantage of this Catch 22.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:08 am
I THINK THAT JUDGEOR< WANTAB JUDGE CARTER WENT FROM A MAN OF BACKBONE TOO A SPINLESS COWARD AND SOLED HIS SOUL FOR A BIG CHECKY WICKY OR IS KEEPING HIS LIFE OR JOB. AND AS FAR AS BARRY= HES A COLD BLOODED ACCSESSORY TOO MURDERING BABYS, HE AND HIS WIFE ARE SAME SEX OBAMINIATION SUPPORTERS, OBAMA HATES AMERICA FULLY CLAIMS HE WORSHIPS THE HOLY QURAN, AND SAYS AMERICA WILL NEVER GO TOO WAR WITH ISLAM=OBAMA WILL ALWAYS PROTECT THE TERRORISTS IN AMERICA NAD OUTSIDE IT CAUSE ISLAM IS HIS god=allah and muhammod his prophet
January 19th, 2010 at 8:31 am
California will not uphold the constitution.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 am
I'm an Aussie and as I see it much of what has been written here shows an underlying antipathy towards Obama rather than (feigned) repect for the law. If this was not so then objectors would equally respect the court's ruling that as president he can now only be removed by a certain path (impeachment etc).
It is not for me to comment on whether the antagonism in some of these comments reflects bigotry of colour but let me give an outsider's viewpoint. Obama is perhaps the best thing that could have happened for the US and the world. He is simply brilliant in almost every respect and would leave the Bush and his administration in the wake of any of his farts. He understands the tremendous changes taking place, particularly China and India, and is positioning the US to advantage. America was, let's say, "patriotic" enough to re-elect, dare I say it, an idiot in Bush. Obama towers over Bush in all respects and yet some consider removing him in his first term! Incredible! At least pursue it following the "law," and not prejudice.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
perhaps it is too hot over there in australia. Are you mental????!!!
January 27th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Orly Taitz' Quo Warranto against Barack Hussein Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25814311/Orly-s-Quo-War...