/  33
 
F  r  o  m    F  r   i  e  n  d  s   a   t    P  o   l   i   t   i   j   a   b .  c  o  m
BARNETT V OBAMA HEARINGOCTOBER 5, 2009WAVEYDAVEY REPORT11 WAVEYDAVEY REPORT ON BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING2 OCTOBER 5, 20093 As Related by Tes:45 They begin letting people into the courtroom at 8:05.6 At 8:30 the prior hearing was still going on, and TAITZ7 arrived. Then there was a recess. At 8:40 the judge8 reentered the courtroom and started up the session for9 this hearing.10 For the defense there were three individuals: WEST,11 DEJUTE, and also Eric Sauzener (phonetic) from D.C.12 WEST presented his motion. First he said he wanted to13 focus on policy issues. He essentially reiterated what14 was in his motion to dismiss; that is, anybody with a15 political agenda and filing fees could contest the16 qualifications of presidents if this was allowed to17 proceed, which affects the balance of power.18 He mentioned the other Obama cases and said, the same19 issues there. If the president is forced to go through20 depositions, and so on, for all a these various cases,21 it would affect his ability to govern.22 If even one judge decides that Obama is not qualified,23 and a second decides that he is qualified, what then?24 Chaos. It would affect the ability to conduct foreign25 policy, nuclear disarmament negotiations, and so on.
Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT
 
F  r  o  m    F  r   i  e  n  d  s   a   t    P  o   l   i   t   i   j   a   b .  c  o  m
BARNETT V OBAMA HEARINGOCTOBER 5, 2009WAVEYDAVEY REPORT21 This approach damages the presidency itself, the office,2 not just Barack Obama.3 The president is the only office elected by all of the4 United States, and the textual commitment in the5 Constitution makes this issue nonjusticiable. At that6 point the judge said, "I could never pronounce that7 word."8 WEST continues that, this is committed to the9 legislative branch, not to the courts. He then talked a10 little bit about quo warranto, and said if it were to --11 if quo warranto were applicable at all, it would be okay12 if it were transferred to D.C. because D.C. is where it13 should be heard. However, quo warranto does not apply14 here.15 Then DEJUTE began to address the Court, and he focused16 on the sur-reply. He said he wanted to make two points.17 Number one, the Ninth Amendment argument. He talked18 about what TAITZ said and said, but in the end only19 Congress has the power to remove a president. The Ninth20 Amendment is not a source of right when the Constitution21 explicitly states otherwise. The Constitution granted22 the right both to seat a president and remove a23 president to Congress.24 The second point related to TAITZ's FOIA claim, that25 the plaintiff has asked the Court to disregard the fact
Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT
 
F  r  o  m    F  r   i  e  n  d  s   a   t    P  o   l   i   t   i   j   a   b .  c  o  m
BARNETT V OBAMA HEARINGOCTOBER 5, 2009WAVEYDAVEY REPORT31 that they did not file the FOIA claims properly. she2 can't get around the rules that apply to FOIA in this3 roundabout way. You have to follow the rules.4 CARTER interrupted to say, "I would like to hear about5 the standing issue."6 WEST responded that plaintiffs simply cannot establish7 injury in fact or particularized harm. Because of this8 there's no redressability and no justicability.9 CARTER then turned to the political question. There10 was a lot of discussion back and forth about the11 Political Question Doctrine, and CARTER's focus was on12 trying to figure out how that works. Basically, he13 said, there's two issues: Number one, is this a14 political question, and number two, walk me, (the judge)15 walk me through the process of how this political16 question will play out.17 If what the DOJ says is true, what would be the18 process to remove the president determined to be19 ineligible? Is it part of the electoral college,20 legislative process, or what? CARTER posed a21 hypothetical. What if Schwarzenegger ran for president22 and Congress was ruled by the Republicans. Would they23 help him? Would they ignore the problem? Make that24 analogy, CARTER said.25 WEST said, it's a totally different situation between
Updated 10/5/2009 6:10 PM PDT

Barnett v. Obama - Report on 10-5 Hearing

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

Jack Ryan

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

Sunnstarrleft a comment

The issue of ’spirit of the law vs. letter of the law’ in this case boils down to this: What did the Founding Fathers have in mind when they specified the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President of the United States in the Constitution? The answer is obviously avoidance of “divided loyalty”. This takes me back to square one and to my original question about Obama: Why did he feel compelled to go to Kenya and support his cousin Odinga, in light of the fact that Odinga had a deal with the radical Muslims of Kenya and Somalia to introduce Sharia Law as the one and only law in Kenya once he was elected? This at a time when the U.S. was (and obviously still is) at war with Radical Islam!!! Is this not enough proof that Obama has divided loyalties? Why is this fundamental issue not being discussed in this case?!? Has everyone become so entangled in the details and legal chess games afoot that they cannot grasp the root of the argument? Obama’s ability to lie, over and over, straight-faced into the camera to the American people has no defense. His record is clear. No Christian would skip over Prayer Day in the U.S., support abortion in its most extreme sense, skip services on his first Easter Holiday in office, etc., etc. All of his actions and his most passionate speeches here and abroad are influenced by his Muslim faith. Even Gadaffi and Farrakhan hail him as a Muslim brother. He bows down to the Saudi King and receives a golden medal from him, he cancels plans for missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to help Iran with their nuclear weapon plans, he hides the fact that he has already made a deal with the United Arab Emirates to hand them nuclear technology, and on and on. Obama betrays Israel in every way possible. He begins releasing terrorists and captured enemy combatants, promising ‘Miranda Rights’ to future detainees. He surrenders our sovereignty as a nation at the G-20 and blatantly begins the deconstruction of our Independence and our Monetary System in favor of his New World Order “socialist view of the world”. He criticizes the Constitution and agrees to do away with the dollar – but not before using TARP funds and Stimulus money to pay off his Wall Street friends and benefactors. Chicago-style corruption is exploding all over the country. What more do Americans need to prove he is a fraud and needs to be removed in a legal and orderly way? If not Judge Carter, then who? The Supreme Court is powerless to do anything until all other options are exhausted. The placement of Sotomayor is null and void if the President is illegal and un-Constitutional. Biden and Pellosi are both compromised legally, as is Hillary Clinton. McCain has proven himself to be weak in his pursuit of a ‘moderate’ position and seems more interested in warming his seat in the Senate than standing up for what he knows is right. Only women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Orly Taitz are fearless enough and have enough honor and integrity to tell us the truth – only to be ignored and demonized by our out-of-control liberal media! How could all of Congress, the CIA, the FBI, and our Military allow this to happen? Someone needs to set things right. History will not be kind to cowards. God help us all if we continue to ignore this much longer. Staying positive is so extremely difficult, and our tendency to loose faith in human nature is strong, but we must persevere. Our children and our children’s children will look back on this time and know who we were when it really counted. I pray we will not let them down.
10 / 07 / 2009
Reply