A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

No Trial for Obama


Q: Is federal judge David O. Carter starting a trial on Jan. 26 to determine whether Obama is qualified to be president?

A: No. This is yet another bogus claim circulated by persons who cling to a belief that Obama was not born in the U.S.A. The judge threw the case out of court back in October.

FULL QUESTION

Is this true?

Court date Jan 26, 2010—-Obama

I ask that you pray for this Judge. I also ask that you storm Heaven, and ask God to allow the truth to come into the light. Get as many people as you can to pray for this to be resolved….HONESTLY….without bribes.
Please Pray For Him

Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama’s Eligibility!

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010

[EET ]Many concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people..

Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama’s request for dismissal. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. Obama would prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama’s motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner.

The judge, WHO IS A FORMER U.S. MARINE, repeated several times that this is A VERY SERIOUS CASE which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama’s attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minut e hearing looking defeated and nervous.

Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility will be known fairly soon – Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories. She was fearless!

This needs to be forwarded to everyone you know….

[/EET]

FULL ANSWER

The lawsuit in question here was filed hours after Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, and it raises groundless claims made in dozens of similar lawsuits, all but a few of which have been dismissed. It claimed that evidence exists to show Obama was born in Kenya, among other things. In fact, Obama long ago produced a valid birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii, and state officials have said the state’s "original vital records" show Obama was born in Hawaii and is "a natural-born American citizen."

This particular e-mail once had a tiny shred of truth to it. At one point Judge David O. Carter had indeed blocked out a tentative trial date for this case, briefly encouraging the Obama birth deniers. But that was as a procedural matter only, and it was never likely that any trial would be held. To reach a trial the case had to survive a motion to dismiss it, which no previous lawsuit by Obama birth deniers had done.

This one didn’t either. Judge Carter not only dismissed the case, but he ended his Oct. 29 opinion with a denunciation of the arguments and claims made by the anti-Obama attorneys:

Judge David O. Carter, Oct. 29, 2009: Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore … 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.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Up until that time, Obama deniers took hope from the fact that Judge Carter had listened patiently and had even blocked out time for a trial should the case ever get that far. But the judge also made clear in his remarks from the bench that he was skeptical that any court had the authority to remove a sitting president from office as the plaintiffs sought, since the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try impeachements." And eventually, that’s the reason he gave for tossing out the case:

Judge David O. Carter, Oct. 29, 2009: 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.

The Obama deniers aren’t giving up, of course. They continue to seek an appeal of Judge Carter’s dismissal. But unless they succeed in that there will be no trial.

Footnote: Judge Carter was less harsh in his opinion than another federal judge who threw out a similar lawsuit brought by the same attorney, Orly Taitz, in Georgia. Judge Clay D. Land issued a ruling declaring the suit before him to be "frivolous." He also said it "has no merit." And he later fined Taitz $20,000 for wasting the court’s time. He said:

Judge Clay D. Land, Oct. 13, 2009: When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.

Taitz is appealing the fine.

For the record, Judge Land was nominated by President George W. Bush, while Judge Carter was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

–Brooks Jackson

Sources

Barnett v. Obama. CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx). United States District Court for the Central District of California. 29 Oct 2009.

Rhodes v. MacDonald. CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL). United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 16 Sep 2009.

Rhodes v. MacDonald. CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL). United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 13 Oct 2009.