Before It's News | People Powered News

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Lady Liberty: New website - Judge Carter Coward, Incompetent, or Corrupt ?

Dr. Orly Taitz

Don’t know if yo have seen this site yet, but it is great. It rips Carter apart on his ruling. It is:


CarterCoward, Incompetent, or Corrupt ?
Coward:Note: He did not say that service was improper. He said that the government believed it was improper- a very different matter. More on this point later.

From the July 13 hearing :
Judge Carter: In talking to you this way you are basically told, we are going to get to the MERITS of this very quickly. The government

At 11:01 line 13. he says:

I wish this would be resolved on it’s MERITS QUICKLY. And he is either not the president or he is

At 11:07 line 1 Judge Carter states:

I mean if he is not president, he shouldn’t be president, if he is he should be. And we need to resolve it on the MERITS

Judge Carter, what happened to hearing the case on it merits ? Your demeanor seemed to change sometime between July 13 and October 5. Did something in your Court change before the October 5 hearing ?

From the Ruling:

Plaintiffs thereby ask this Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by We the People over sixtynine million of the people. President Obama was popularly elected. He received the requisite votes from the Electoral College, which were received and counted by Congress with no objections.

So popular vote overides the Constitution ? Nice to see you turning your back on the oath you took to defend the Constitution. By the way, the reason why no ojections were offered was because the President of the Senate never called for them as required by law. When the legislative branch makes a mistake, an error or violates a law, it is for the courts to step in and correct that error. Therefore, the district court does have jurisdiction to review the failure of the Congress to properly follow the law enacted to protect the integrity of the counting of the electoral votes.

While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service

Nice mistatement of the facts “your honor”. You never made a ruling on whether or not they were properly served. In fact, when the filings for the request for default judgment were made, you kept on denying the request saying that service was improper and pointing to the wrong section of the Federal Rules ( Rule 5(i) ) to support your decision. When it was pointed out to you in the final motion that you were wrong in the section of the Federal Rules that you were citing and that the correct section was Rule 4 5(e) ( service for acts not committed in official capacity ), you reluctantly granted the hearing. The fact that you accepted the motion after denying it twice before, shows that service was made properly. Otherwise you would have denied it again. Because in the motion Ms. Taitz said she would seek an immediate interlocutory appeal if the motion were denied, you were put in a box. You knew you would lose on appeal. Thus the granting of the hearing. The reason for the August 25 service was at the suggestion of the court to please the government so that there would not be endless appeals. The August 25 submission DOES NOT mean the Jan 20 one was improper

In fact, your honor, this whole trial you held was illegal in the first place and thus the motion to dismiss was illegal. The first hearing was for a default judgment. Therefore you had to follow Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;

(B) determine the amount of damages;

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or

(D) investigate any other matter.

So all you were empowered to do at that hearing was either grant the default ( which you didn¡¦t ), deny the default ( which you didn¡¦t ) , or conduct hearings or make referrals when to make a judgement, it needs to establish the truth of any allegation by evidence or investigate any other matter. Thus,you had no right to set a trial date. As a result, the government had NO RIGHT to file a motion to dismiss.. This should have be an investigative hearing on evidence, by you, in order to determine if default judgement should be granted. By the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you were not empowered to do anything else.

This was a cowardly way by you to try to get around not granting the default on the basis it was not served properly ( knowing you would have lost that one on appeal ) That left granting the default which you did not want, or holding a hearing on the evidence ( which would have required some discovery ) which would have been just as bad as holding a trial, because the defense could not file a motion to dismiss in a hearing on the evidence. By moving to an illegal trial, you gave yourself the cowards way out.


Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the president was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be president,

First of all, there is no fact that Obama produced a birth certificate from Hawaii and the plaintiffs never argued that. Where did you get that information ? That was never introduced into court as evidence. To date, the only thing he has ” produced ” was a COLB – a certification of live birth that has been challenged as being a forgery. This COLB has never be entered into evidence into a court of law for analysis. Do you even know the difference between a certification and an actual birth certificate ? It would seem to me that a competent judge would at least learn the distinction between the two when he is trying a case that concerns these matters.

Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’s long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth.

and this exchange from the October 5 hearing :

MR. KREEP: …he second thing is, is that federal law at thetime required Mr. Obama’s mother to be a resident continuously in the United States for five years after age in order to convey her citizenship if the child was not born in the United States. So the issue is if the child was born in Mombasa, in what was then —

THE COURT: Just a moment. There’s the interesting point. Bear with me for a moment. The law got changed, didn’t it?

MR. KREEP: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So therefore, depending upon the Congress, we can change the constitutional right to be President?

MR. KREEP: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It appears to me that Congress did.

Are you kidding me ? You seem to not understand the difference between native born, naturalized, and natural born.. Congress NEVER changed the constitutional right to be President. What they changed was how citizenship was inherited. Nowhere is there a change by Congress on the natural born status requirement for President. You should go back to civics class, your honor. The only way the natural born requirement can be changed is NOT by an act of Congress, but by an ammendment to the Constituion – requiring the holding of a constitutional convention.

As far as the understanding of the definition of natural born as defined by Vattel as the natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens (which was understood by the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice ) , you should do a little research ( though this was provided to you in the motions ). Judge Carter, this Court does not have to define the natural born citizen clause. It has been defined by people more familiar with it than you. You mention one – John Jay. Do I need to remind you of who he was ? He just happened to be the President of the Continental Congress ( you know , the ones that actually wrote the Constitution ) and the first Chief Justice of the United States. John Jay was a proponent of Vattel ( the work you don’t think is important to rely on ) and in his tenure as Chief Justice he referred to Vatel numerous times. But perhaps the first Chief Justice is not enough to convince the Court. Well, how about another of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin.

On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattels editor :

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Finally, maybe this would convince the court.

A statement made by John Bingham ( another one you flippantly toss aside ) – the father of the Fourteenth Ammendment- on the floor of the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

Or how about another Chief Justice, Justice Waite, who wrote the majority opinion in Minor v. Happersett( 1874) in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

It is absurd that this Court thinks it has to define the meaning of natural born when it has clearly already been defined by the courts and a member of Congress ( in the late 1800s – before the dumbing down of America ) and of course by the Founding Fathers themselves. Or do you , Judge Carter , think you are more qualified in determining the meaning of the phrase than Justice Jay and Benjamin Franklin ?


From the Ruling :

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

Taitz NEVER encouraged her supporters to contact the Court. Where did you get this information ? If somebody told you this, isn’t that ex parte communication and isn’t that unethical and improper behaviour for a judge to engage in ? It is true some supporters may have suggested contacting the Court through messages posted on her blog. That is FAR different from acuusing an attorney of doing the same. It is interesting when you made that comment in the October 5 hearing, she tried to respond to your allegations and you cut her off :

Ms. Taitz, if you can control the phone calls. I leave that to you. If not, I want to assure you I’m not accepting any of those phone calls. They’re simply going into an answering machine and being deleted by the secretary. I’ll just say to you I don’t think that that was helpful putting on an internet blog that you thought that people could influence the Court by calling them. It was inappropriate.

MS. TAITZ: May I respond?

THE COURT: No, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibility. But it won’t bear on my decision or my writing. My writing will be transparent.

You also say ” Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision”

Tell me Judge, does that include advice from your new law clerk, Siddharth Velamoor, who was hired October 1st – four days prior to the hearing ? You know about Mr. Velamoor., who is an associate with Perkins Coie which represented Obama in a previous case litigated by Dr. Orly Taitz last winter.I do not need to remind you, Judge, who one of the partners in Perkins Coie is, a certain Robert F. Bauer ( married to Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director ). Bauer is general counsel to Obamas Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee. He is also the same attorney that threatened sanctions against opposing counsel if he didn’t withdraw his appeal of a decision in an Obama eligability case. Oh by the way, he is being mentioned to be the next Chief White House Counsel.

As you well know Judge, a clerkship for a Federal judge is a well sought after position. For each opening, there are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of applications. Do you really expect people to believe that out of all the applicants for that position, an associate for the law firm that represents Obama in the eligibility cases “just happened ” to get hired as your clerk four days before the trial? Gee, what a coincindence !!! Don’t you read the resumes of your clerks before they are hired ? Did it concern you that there could even be a slight conflict of interest ? Yet, you went ahead and hired him anyway.

So Judge Carter, which smells more of “unethical” behaviour ? An UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION OF HEARSAY levied against Dr.Taitz by you , or the FACT that you hired as a clerk – four days prior to the trial – an associate of the law firm that defends Obama in all of these eligibility cases.


No comments:

Post a Comment