“Speaker of the House” Theresa Cao Meets Again with Defense Attorney

“I THINK SHE IS WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT”

by Sharon Rondeau

Theresa Cao has been active in protesting the New World Order, Obama's eligibility, and Biblical issues for the last three years

(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?

THERESA: Correct.

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?

SHARON: Your shout-out has already made national news; with a jury trial, there might be even more exposure about the question of Obama’s eligibility.

THERESA: She also said, essentially, that none of my exhibits are valid!

SHARON: Really?

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.

10 Responses to "“Speaker of the House” Theresa Cao Meets Again with Defense Attorney"

  1. alain   Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    What worries me is that obots are crowing about Theresa not being eligible for a jury trial according to DC law. If true this is a travesty. Instead of a jury, this brave lady would be going in alone with an obot lawyer and an obot judge. It may seem crazy but perhaps she should do another minor crime which would push her possible jail time to the point she reaches the DC jury trial minimum. Risky but maybe het only choice.

  2. usapatriots-shout   Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM

    Dear Theresa,

    This is not meant as legal advice. The following are some ideas that could help:

    In your interview, the article it states:

    “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?”

    WHY DON’T YOU FORCE THIS SO-CALLED PUBLIC DEFENDER APRIL DOWNS TO PUT EVERYTHING IN WRITING TO THE PROSECUTION, WHY DON’T YOU THEN DEMAND COPIES OF ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS. DEMAND THOSE COPIES IN WRITING TO APRIL DOWNS, KEEP THAT PAPER TRAIL ALIVE! DO NOTHING ORALLY WITH DOWNS. “PHONE CALLS ARE B.S.” WHY DON’T YOU ASK HER TO WRITE THAT LETTER TO THE PROSECUTION ASKING THAT YOUR CASE BE DROPPED.

    NEXT, YOU ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE RULES OF COURT AND THE ABA TO RECEIVE ALL COPIES OF YOUR FILES (1. THE COURT FILE **AND** 2. THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT FILE), WHY DON’T YOU MAKE A DEMAND IN WRITING TO APRIL DOWNS FOR A FULL AND COMPLETE COPY OF YOUR FILE. WHY DON’T YOU GIVE HER A DEADLINE TO PRODUCE. IF SHE FAILS TO COMPLY, CONSIDER TURNING HER INTO THE BAR. WHY DON’T YOU WRITE THE BAR AND THE JUDGE AND ASK THAT SHE BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMAND TO HAVE COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE FILE. THE COURT TOO, MUST PROVIDE YOU WITH COPIES OF THE COURT’S FILE. WHY DON’T YOU REPEAT THIS ACTION UNTIL YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT.

    NEXT, MOST OF US PROBABLY WOULD NOT PLEAD. OFTEN, COURTS WILL LIKELY BE UNABLE TO RENDER A “JUDGEMENT” WITHOUT A PLEA OR TRIAL, YOU WILL FORCE THEM TO TAKE YOU TO TRIAL. DEMAND A JURY?

    UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, WHY DON’T YOU MAKE A DEMAND FOR HER PERSONNEL FILE AND SALARY AND HIRING HISTORY AND THEN DO THE SAME FOR THE PROSECUTORS. ALL THAT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION.

    NEXT, WHY DON’T YOU GET THE COMPLAINT FORMS FROM THE STATE BAR, AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. YOU ARE THE CLIENT, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE AND YOUR REPRESENTATION. WHY DON’T YOU FILE A COMPLAINT AT THESE BARS AGAINST HER, BEING CERTAIN TO STATE THE FACTS, NOT TRY YOUR CASE, BUT STATE THE PERTINENT FACTS, LIKE, IF YOU ASKED HER TO STOP REPRESENTING YOU, THAT WOULD
    BE CONSIDERED TO BE A FACT. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN ANOTHER PUBLIC DEFENDER IN A TIMELY MANNER SO AS NOT TO PREJUDICE YOUR CASE.

    WHY DON’T YOU WRITE TO THE ACLU AND ASK THEM TO DEFEND YOU, DON’T LAUGH, THEY HAVE REPRESENTED GANG MEMBERS IN LOS ANGELES AND THEY PUT ON AN ADMIRABLE DEFENSE. AS ODD AS IT MAY SEEM, THIS COULD BE RIGHT UP THEIR ALLEY. REMEMBER, THEY SUPPORT THE PROTESTORS, IE UNIONS, — WHAT YOU DID IS NO DIFFERENT. YOUR PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE THE “FORUM” IN WHICH YOU DID IT. I OFTEN WONDER WHAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD DO WITH A PERSON WITH A TOURETTE’S SYNDROME DISABILITY WHO HAS INVOLUNTARY OUTBURSTS AND HAD ONE OF THOSE OUTBURSTS IN THE SAME FORUM WHERE YOU SAID WHAT YOU SAID. WOULD THEY STILL BE BRINGING THIS CASE?

    WHY DON’T YOU WRITE TO OBAMA IN THE WH, AND REMIND HIM THAT HE WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR PROMOTING PEACE, WELL NOWS HIS CHANCE TO DEFEND IT. WHY DON’T YOU ASK HIM TO DROP THIS CASE, JUST LIKE HE HAD ERIC HOLDER DROP ALL THOSE OTHER CASES, HE HAS THE POWER TO DROP THIS CASE. ASK HIM TO PUT HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO GOOD USE AND THAT IF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS THEN MENTION IT.

    ATTENTION: ALL CITIZENS. THIS COULD BE US! SHOULDN’T WE ALL WRITE TO THE WH AND ASK THIS PRESIDENT TO DROP THIS CASE AGAINST HER. (YOU MIGHT WANT TO KEEP THE LETTER VERY SHORT AND ON POINT AND NON THREATENING SO THAT THE WH DOESN’T GO AFTER YOU-THE-LETTER-WRITER.)

    IF THAT’S WHAT YOU REALLY WANT, WHY DON’T YOU PUT YOUR DEMAND TO REMOVE APRIL AS YOUR COUNCIL AND PUBLIC DEFENDER ON PAPER — IN WRITING AND SEND IT TO THE COURT AND ALSO FILE IT WITH THE COURT SO THE JUDGE WILL BE *FORCED* TO HAVE A SIDE HEARING TO ADDRESS IT AND THE PAPERS MIGHT PICK THAT UP AS WELL.

    FILE THAT MOTION. IF YOU CAN’T FILE A MOTION, WHY DON’T YOU SEND THE JUDGE A LETTER, HAVE THE LETTER PUBLISHED IN THE MAJOR PAPERS. WHY DON’T YOU SEND A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO ALL THE MAJOR NEWSPAPER EDITORS ACROSS THE NATION.

    DO NOT PUT DOING THESE THINGS OFF. YOU ARE LEFT TO VIGOROUSLY DEFEND YOURSELF BECAUSE OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE YOUR PERCEIVED IMPRESSION OF INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL.

    STOP GIVING INTERVIEWS, IT COULD HARM YOU UNTIL YOU HAVE A GOOD ATTORNEY

  3. Jon Carlson   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

    Your lawyer has to request from the judge a dismissal of the charge. If he doesn’t dismiss the charge your lawyer has to ask the judge for a jury trial and a continuance to prepare for the trial. A month or two. At a jury trial you have your peers to judge. If your lawyer is not compatible it is best to get another lawyer. The woods are full of them. She is getting a chance to make her name and knows it and doesn’t want to leave. If the judge is an Obama appointee have your lawyer request a recusal and a new judge. We are seeing where judges answer to those who appoint them.

  4. DixHistory   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 8:58 PM

    @ Zach Jones says: Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 7:44 AM

    ‘Given that 95% of black Americans voted for Obama, I would raise a racial aspect in the minds of everyone remaining on the jury, i.e., the racism involved in many black Americans voting for Obama.”

    Zach, I see and do get your point.

    There are a lot of Americans ( US Citizens ) of all colors who believe as I do, that we should be a nation of laws. Sound legal advice that agrees with her own principals, is what she should seek.

  5. Fran   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    Kathy, the government is NOT afraid of putting anyone in jail. Our criminal government, and military, certainly showed us this by putting an innocent LTC Lakin in Leavenworth.

  6. Leo Patrick Haffey   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    I know from the horrendous ordeal my family suffered at the hands of BHO cohorts in Nashville how much courage it takes not to give in to a plea bargain on false charges.

    Theresa Cao is a heroine as is Commander Fitzpatrick for not capitulating to a guilty plea on false charges.

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/leo-haffey-nashville-attorney-political-prisoner-court-hearing-may-17-2010-900-obama-thugs-nashville-tn-corruption/

  7. Stock   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 8:21 AM

    Are there any legal eagles on our side who can do some pro-bono who can help this Patriot-in the area?

  8. Zach Jones   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 7:44 AM

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/on_birth_issue_the_donald_trum.html
    March 24, 2011
    On Birth Issue ‘The Donald’ Trumps Other Republicans
    Jack Cashill
    If Donald Trump’s goal is to differentiate himself from those jelly-kneed Republican candidates too timid to ask even the most basic questions about President Barack Obama’s origins, he is doing a bang-up job of it….

    Regarding Ms. Cao:

    I hope Theresa Cao will seek a jury trial and hammer the jury on voir dire about eligibility, what they’ve seen in the main stream media, why have the media not reported this issue, what is a ‘natural born citizen’, is there a difference between a natural born citizen and an ordinary citizen, use the opportunity to educate the jury, creat some possible issues for appeal about jury selection, investigate political party identification, views on Constitution, etc.

    I would be interesting if potential jury members who thought a ‘natural born citizen’ required birth to two citizens were excluded by the prosecution. Issue for appeal? Hmmm. Wish I had a law library. Could that question be limited by Judge? If so, is that an issue?

    Given that 95% of black Americans voted for Obama, I would raise a racial aspect in the minds of everyone remaining on the jury, i.e., the racism involved in many black Americans voting for Obama.

    Plant seeds of a stacked deck and hope for a jury pardon.

  9. sky   Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 12:03 AM

    patriotactionnetwork artical Soros Event Aims To Remake Entire Global System

  10. Kathy   Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 11:15 PM

    I bet they’re scared to set a precedent by putting her in jail for fear of what could happen to their unions. Look what the unions got away with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.