While Federal Judge Carter was swift in setting a trial date on the Lucas lawsuit, saying that if there were valid concerns pertaining to Obama’s eligibility to serve, the issue should be addressed. Assuring plaintiffs that the case would be decided on merit and would not be dismissed on technicalities, Judge Carter seems to be back stepping in his words and demeanor.
After hearing three hours of arguments, Judge Carter did not make a ruling, saying he needed more time but that a ruling would be forthcoming sometime “later this week.” Well today is Friday and hopefully we will have a ruling before the end of today. Whatever Judge Carter decides, it’s pretty much a sure bet there will be an appeal filed by the losing side.
So why did Judge Carter need more time anyway? Just what is under ‘submission’ and what would legally be deemed ‘valid’ concerns? What must Judge Carter take under review?
The two main factors surrounding this issue are Justiciability and Standing. So let’s look at these two factors closer:
Justiciability is basically whether this suit is the type of ‘matter’ Judge Carter has the authority to adjudicate. Standing which requires certain conditions be met, gets into the technical issues of the case. Three constitutional requirements must be met in order to ‘prove’ standing:
Injury – in the legal context of this suit, basically requires ‘showing’ a direct “connection to” and “harm from” the ‘action’ being challenged. This injury must be one, the plaintiff has already or will in future, imminently suffer harm. Additionally, this injury must be “within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.”
Causation – showing of injury to be ‘reasonably’ connected to the defendant’s conduct.
Redressability – A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.
And, in addition to the three constitutional requirements, two other requirements have to be met:
1. A party cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court, and may only assert his or her own rights.
2. A plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers.
While I have not seen the motion(s) filed on behalf of the defendant [Obama], I do have a copy of the [Lucas] affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff [Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,] in same lawsuit.
As with the IRS, everything is in the ‘wording’ and whether it displays that ‘standing’ as valid. In other words [literally], if you can cite a cause by law or code, then make a ‘showing’ of interpretation [sometimes very twisted] that would ‘appear’ legitimate – you might expect a favorable ruling on your motion.
From what I have seen of the Obama team, they are very crafty and clever with their ‘use’ of words. But, in this particular case I can’t imagine any wordplay or manipulation of the law, that could ‘reasonably’ be cause for ‘dismissal’ on this suit. Mind you, this is my opinion and I am not a lawyer, much less a Federal Judge. But what I do have is common sense and a ‘reasonably’ fair knowledge of our legal system.
So, now it is up to Judge Carter – and his ‘use’ or choice of wording in HIS interpretation of the laws involved. What say you Judge Carter? Will you render a ruling for discovery [disclosure], so the questions surrounding President Obama’s eligibility can finally be addressed and answered – a right all citizens of this great country are entitled to? Will you order P Obama to submit for ‘foot’ prints, will you order for ‘production’ of all secreted recordations and/or all other documents [college app. allegedly as foreign student] and proof of Citizenship? The ball is in YOUR court [pun intended].