“I THINK SHE IS WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 23, 2011) — Defendant Theresa Cao, who shouted “Except Obama! Except Obama!” during the reading of the U.S. Constitution on January 6, met with her public defender on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, after initially having dismissed her on March 14, 2011, prior to her March 15 hearing.
Cao officially announced that she was firing Attorney April Downs in a Motion to Dismiss addressed to the government in which she referenced several articles published at The Post & Email and charged Barack Hussein Obama with treason.
Theresa gave her account of her meeting with Downs exclusively to The Post & Email.
SHARON: When did you meet with Ms. Downs?
THERESA: It was March 22 at noon, for about an hour; perhaps a little more.
SHARON: Did she have any reaction to your Motion to Dismiss which you introduced the day before your hearing?
THERESA: Yes. After the last hearing, she asked to see the motion, so she saw what I wrote about her.
SHARON: And what was her reaction to that?
THERESA: Well, I tried not to talk about it; I just let her read and I tried to divert her, which sometimes left us at an impasse.
I believe that in my Motion to Dismiss, I was showing the judicial system that I have caught them in their corruption. I put it all on paper that I could clearly read them and they are not who they say they are. I have it all on paper.
SHARON: What do you think she thought of the information you included?
THERESA: This was another test for her, actually. Remember she said that she was now going to defend me based on my constitutional rights?
SHARON: Yes, I remember.
THERESA: Well, clearly, in this particular meeting, again, she opposed me on basically everything that I wanted to have done based on my defense on the Constitution.
SHARON: Even though she’s on the record as having said on the 15th that she would continue as your attorney and give you representation based on all these constitutional points?
SHARON: Why do you think she wanted to stay on your case?
THERESA: I talked to them that day about their vicious game of corruption, and I exposed them through the Motion to Dismiss, and they know that they can’t fool me. I think she was trying to save face and trying to save the face of the entire judicial system that wants me to kowtow to a plea bargain. I think she is hoping that I will take the plea bargain. She still hasn’t done any research on Code Pink for me, again; she hasn’t done any research on any other cases. The case that she keeps on shoving in my face has to do with “case law,” but I kept bringing her back to the point about the Supreme Law of the Land. I even mentioned to her “Joe Wilson.” Talk about slamming me big-time, insinuating that that doesn’t even apply because the Constitution’s rights are not even involved in that particular case. How crazy is that?
SHARON: I know there’s a privilege which says that members of Congress cannot be brought up on charges for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. I don’t know if that included when Obama was giving his speech about his health plan or whether or not Rep. Joe Wilson was “officially” on the floor.
THERESA: It doesn’t matter if he’s the congressman and I’m not, and I kept on telling her that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution and not just case law.
SHARON: My understanding is that not all “case law” has been decided using the Constitution.
THERESA: Exactly. But not once did she say that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution. She talked about case law and everything else. She did say something to the effect of, “You may have been treated unfairly…” Can you imagine using that word “unfairly?” Where is that in the Constitution? “You might have been treated unfairly, but that doesn’t mean that this case has anything to do with the Constitution.”
SHARON: Do you think she’s going to keep her pledge to defend you based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or do you think she was bluffing?
THERESA: As a matter of fact, she made a statement which she had never made before. During my last meeting on the 15th, I told her to ask if the prosecution was going to dismiss my case. That’s what I asked her to ask the prosecution. Then, when I got there yesterday, she said she had not gotten a response. It seems that she didn’t do any work, first of all, with my question. Then she said that she didn’t get a response, and then I got some details from that statement. So I said, “Then what exactly is going on?” and she said that she left a message for the prosecution, but then she called the prosecution during our meeting to leave a message. So she might never have even talked to them, although she said that she talked to them previously, but only in generalities. So what’s the point?
I insisted and said, “I want a response by Friday, the 25th.” Because this is ridiculous. She’s not doing any work, certainly not in a timely manner. I told her that I want them to dismiss my case altogether, but now she’s saying that she doesn’t even know if they’re going to give me the offer of a “Stet Docket.”
SHARON: Do you think she is stuck on the idea of a plea bargain?
THERESA: Yes, of course. So now she’s saying that the likelihood of my getting a Stet Docket is minimal, but in other meetings, she had recommended it. But then she threw out this curve ball and said, “Maybe the prosecution does not even want to take this case to a jury trial.” Can you believe it?
THERESA: She also said, essentially, that none of my exhibits are valid!
THERESA: (Laughs) I wish I were kidding. I forget the exact wording that she used, but basically said, “The judge is not going to let your exhibit about some article from some newspaper…” I said to her, “That’s my First Amendment freedom of the press,” and then I also said to her, “Also, the redress of grievances…” Can you imagine her telling me that the judge will not allow me to use any of my exhibits? She says one thing, but in action, ultimately, she is still trying to get me to accept a plea bargain.
SHARON: I have read that many plea bargains are offered because the government knows most people are afraid of going to jail.
THERESA: Absolutely, because they want everyone in fear and trembling to succumb to whatever the government says, and they’re all part of the corruption. She said that “Maybe the prosecution does not want to take this to a jury trial because it is going to be too time-consuming.”
SHARON: But isn’t her job to be looking out for your best interests?
THERESA: Yes, but she might have said that to mean that the prosecution is running scared. I believe they are, because of my exhibits and all of the evidence there from CDR Kerchner and Atty. Mario Apuzzo’s case and Walt Fitzpatrick and Lt. Col. Lakin, everybody else, and me.
SHARON: Are you going to keep Ms. Downs as your public defender?
THERESA: I will have to wait until I get a response from the prosecution on Friday, and that will decide the direction of the case. At this point, we are seeing clearly that she is working for the government, and I absolutely will hold my ground to defend God, country and the Constitution. So I’ll give you an update on Friday.
One more thing: You mentioned that Congressman Dennis Kucinich has brought up impeachment for Obama following the missile strikes on Libya on March 20. On January 6, the day of the reading of the Constitution, I went to the wrong entrance, and I literally met Kucinich as I was en route into the gallery. This was outdoors. I said to him, “Sir, I recognize you, but unfortunately I don’t recall your name,” and it was Kucinich himself! It happened on the morning of the 6th, and he didn’t want to be on camera, so that’s why I don’t have a picture of him.
SHARON: Was that before the shout-out or after?
THERESA: It was before. The reason I said that is that it seems there was some kind of a divine connection there, because now he’s calling for Obama’s impeachment.
Editor’s Note: Congressman Kucinich issued a press release on his website on March 18 which quoted then-Senator Obama as having said:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.