Some of the reasoning in this motion to dismiss are rather amusing, to say the least. The humor is all in the footnotes; maybe they hope no one will read them.
In footnote number 1, they actually refer to the phony certificate of live birth posted on factcheck.org as a valid birth certificate. Please spare me the satire. Do they actually, really, truly believe anyone accepts that internet version of a lie to be valid? Well, anyone other than our Senators and Congresspersons, who choose to believe whatever is convenient and easy to believe.
In that same footnote, they refer to information printed in public newspapers as legitimate information regarding the presence of a birth certificate on file in Hawaii . So, some Hawaii official says they saw a birth certificate, but failed to mention what was on it, whether it was the original bc, or if it was an amended one and these, I am assuming very expensive lawyers, are blithely accepting this as factual documentation worthy of judicial acceptance?
Doesn’t it seem like it would be a lot easier, and cheaper, to just produce the birth certificate? I guess not.
Foot note number two also has some interesting items in it. This footnote lists all of the previously filed lawsuits challenging the Usurper’s eligibility that have been dismissed. This was enough to awaken Leo Donofrio from his poker game because his case and Wrotnowski’s case, which Donofrio assisted with, are referenced. As Donofrio explains on his recently rejuvenated website:
“As to Cort Wrotnowski’s case, the footnote references the Conn. court’s dismissal for “subject matter standing” and asks the court to take Judicial Notice of it.
But this motion certainly does not mention that the statute the Connecticut decision relied upon was not at all relevant to Cort’s pleadings since that statute, by its direct wording, only applies to “candidates” or “electors”. Cort was neither a candidate nor an elector. And there’s your kangaroo Connecticut court ruling now trumpeted by the Obama legal team.
SCOTUS knew damn well that the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling was fully bogus in every damn sense of the word - bogus - … so they said nothing.
But since SCOTUS said nothing, now the Obama legal team makes use of the bogus decision in Connecticut.”
I love it; the Usurper’s legal team uses an erroneous decision to justify its position on another case. You know what, I bet they hired a first year law student with aspirations to a position of power and influence in the Usurper’s administration to write this response. No way can I accept a real lawyer wrote this.
Donofrio’s case is also mentioned in footnote 2, and he explains how he was also subjected to fraudulent action on the part of the NJ court. Donofrio writes, regarding his case,
“I have a pending ethics complaint which has been deemed “confidential” by the Judicial Committee, so I can’t discuss what’s going on with that. I am also exploring a civil action for monetary damages. If I take that route, I will issue a subpoena to put each SCOTUS justice on the witness stand to determine whether the lower court judge’s actions in making my “direct appeal” look like a “notice of motion for leave to appeal” had any effect on their denial of my application.”
In terms of Hollister v Soetoro, the motion for dismissal basically claims that Hollister does not have standing because he has not been called up to active duty yet, so therefore, he has no standing in this case. Sigh, there goes that standing thing again.
I do think that the reason we have a response at all has everything to do with the fact that the military has now been injected into the issue. However, this particular military person is retired.
What would seem to be a better case would be to have some active military personnel file a lawsuit. That would get them hopping now wouldn’t it, especially since we have a military judge who says he is continuing on with his Gitmo case, even though the Usurper has asked that all cases be halted.
“The chief military judge at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba , Army Col. James Pohl, said that he found the government's arguments "unpersuasive" and that the case will go ahead because "the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment.”
Good for Col. Pohl, he has the authority to do that. However, in terms of a lawsuit, it seems to me I read somewhere that active military cannot file a lawsuit without possibly facing a court martial, so that leaves it up to a National Guardsman who has been called up to active duty. I’m not a lawyer, I guess that is obvious, but if I was Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, or Orly Taiz, I sure would be looking hard for a willing and qualified plaintiff.
For further information check out the following links:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
Posted by: Ted | February 01, 2009 at 03:30 AM