Lady Liberty before Carter's Bench

DR. ORLY TAITZ TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS TODAY IN SANTA ANA

ATTORNEY KREEP VALIANTLY DEFENDS STANDING OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES

TAITZ AND KREEP TOGETHER CONVINCE JUDGE NOT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF MOTION TO DISMISS TODAY

REPORT ON HEARING RESULTS AT BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE

by John Charlton

(Oct. 5, 2009) — At 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. went before Judge David O. Carter in the Federal Court House in Santa Ana, California, USA, to defend the rights of her plaintiffs to standing in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..

There are few times in history when transcendent ideals and historical persons or events coincide; fewer still when a historical person takes on the mantel of these ideals.

Today is one of those days, and Dr. Orly Taitz is one of those historic figures.

But since Obama’s crime of usurpation touches us all, Dr. Taitz has undergone this metonomic transformation, since she is representing virtually Lady Liberty herself, that is America, our beloved Nation.

The Post & Email will be reporting news about this hearing as soon as possible.

This current post is being published at 11:00 AM Pacific Time, just 1 and a half hours after the beginning of the hearing.  It is expected to end within the hour, so check back for updates to this article.

Sometime after 11:30 AM — Recess break is supposed to take place.  Its been already a long hearing, which likely means that the Motion to Dismiss is going to be at least in part denied, and some plaintiffs granted standing.  That would mean discovery would be ordered either today or this week!

——————–

ALL TIMES PACIFIC TIME / LOCAL TIME IN SANTA ANA

UPDATE 11:45 AM: It is rumoured that Judge Carter said during the hearing, “Obama will not be testifying, because he does not remember his own birth!”

UPDATE 11:50 AM: The Motion to Dismiss will not be decided today, and hence no order for discovery granted.

Judge Carter, according to Attorney Kreep, was leaning to dismiss the case and grant the Motion to Dismiss; but Taitz and Kreep joined in an impassioned defense of their plaintiffs rights, at the end of which, the crowd attending burst into applause, causing the Judge to table his decision for later.

The hearing has ended.

The Post & Email is now going to attempt to speak live with someone who was at the hearing.

Stay tuned.

SUMMARY OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AT HEARING

The Post & Email just spoke with a secretary of Mr. Charles Lincoln about the hearing, and publishes this summary:

It was a long hearing from about 8:30 AM to 11:45 AM Pacific time, with only a 20 minute recess.  More than 100 persons attended. There was an overflow room with video hookup to accomodate everyone.

Judge David O. Carter issued no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, nor to grant discovery. He cited his need to sort out the complex legal issues, consider all the arguments carefully.

During the hearing the specific agenda disscussed was as follow (this is not in chronological order):

Judge Carter denied Attorney Gary Kreep’s Motion for Severance, which would have created a parallel case, for his clients.

Judge Carter questioned the Defense’s counsel, regarding the method of impeachment and how that would address this controversy.

Attorney Gary Kreep argued that the case does not involve impeachment; since Obama has entered office unlawfully.

Judge Carter questioned on what basis his court could issue a quo warrento proceeding, when the D.C. court had jurisdiction over this kind of proceeding.  Dr. Orly Taitz responded by citing precedents in the 9th Circuit, that allowed quo warranto proceedings to be held in California, rather than in Washington, D.C., in account of the great distance to the other side of the continent.

When questioned about the injury suffered by other candidates on the ballot in California, Attorney Kreep explained the injury they suffered and the Judge responded thoughtfully to his arguments.

Regarding military plaintiffs, Judge Carter mentioned that there was a ruling in the 9th circuit which denied standing to oath takers on the basis that this was not a particularized injury.

In all, Judge Carter was very concerned about standing claims and wanted to know what the actual injuries were, and how standing was being justified.

The Defense argued that the Court had no authority to hear the case, and that claims were political in nature and therefore not for the Judiciary to adjudicate.

Judge Carter pointed out that the case was unique and that there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly.

The Post & Email will interview Mr. Charles Lincoln live, and post this in a separate report in about 3 hours.

0 Responses to "Lady Liberty before Carter's Bench"

  1. LaVie   Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 6:08 AM

    Judge Carter is probably weighing the consequences (from Obama official W.H. thug squad) of proceeding with the lawsuit with those of dismissal (and keeping himself and his family alive). Sounds a lot like what went on in Nazi Germany. Wow, our country is in big trouble with this usurper.

    The only thing to do now is to pray for those who are fighting for truth… With God, all things are possible. defendourfreedoms.org

  2. Caroline Rausch   Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM

    There IS a precedent case — Senor Micheletti in Honduras who defended his constitution and legally got rid of the “man who would be king” — just as Obama wants to be king. In fact, he has already said he would change the law of only two terms for a president, and has already got ACORN poised to rig the vote of his third term. What enormouis intestinal fortitude has this gigantic Micheletti — to face all the slings and arrows of so many Commies all over the world. If he can do it, so can we. What a lesson for the world, Obama’s demise would hearten the freedom fighters in Iran and all freedom-loving people in the world. Carter, be a hero, let us love you, let us idolize you, you have faced other enemies and won, you can win against this one to, who is even more dangerous than any other enemy America ever had.

  3. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  4. Jeff Scism   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 10:40 PM

    We must realize that the very nuances of the wording of Judge Carter’s decision will be the meat of contention. No matter which way this goes, Judge Carter is on the hot seat. His rulings will be reviewed critically by the press and by the appeals courts.
    Adjudicating this in the Blogs and press will not make it happen , but a COURT reviewing carefully the base laws of the land will.

    Judge Carter has to decide on standing, the pit fall of all similar cases preceeding this one, and then has to make a ruling on discovery, and the facts of the case as presented.

    The SAFE path is to try to pass this up the line fora decision, but he is required to make a ruling that will stand judicial review and be upheld.

  5. Gar Rogells   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM

    Why is it so difficult to provide a legitimate birth certificate? You are required to do this when you apply for a driver’s licence, to vote, a social security card, to travel abroad and to run for any political office. Did no one make a copy.

  6. michael hannes zuntag   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 12:34 PM

    what was today’s outcome ?????

  7. Tracy Bahr   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 7:54 AM

    If discovery is ordered will that force the release of his original (long form) birth documents in Hi?
    Mr. Charlton replies: Yes, if such a document exists for him.

  8. John Charlton   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 9:16 PM

    Thanks for all the questions: I tried to incorporate them all or at least cover all the issues raised.

    See the main page for the Interview with Charles Lincoln, which I published just about 20 minutes ago.

  9. Pingback: The Right Side of Life » Barnett v. Obama: Judge Delays Decision, Voices Concerns

  10. Sam   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM

    I can understand Judge Carters hesitation, considering very little is being said, or done about this matter by any one else in our country. Although it doesn’t change the facts. Their hasn’t ever been sufficient proof of his US citizenship. When you can smell a skunk, it usually means their is one somewhere close by. I for one know Obama is hiding information. The question is not whether he will expose him self, but whether their is enough awareness and discernment in our country to see the truth. I invite you to join us to pray to God to expose the truth. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=138503468480

  11. Asureyes   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:03 PM

    The Judge has telegraphed his core concerns. If he allows the case to move forward, he will have to Make Law in the 9th. district and set precedent. This is not a position a court wants to do as it is opens the decision to being over ruled by the higher court. The issue of the DC court vs the 9th.s district for venue is no small judicial matter and is the fulcrum of the motion to dismiss. The absence of existing law or prior decision means he must wright a new precedent. If he does, he will have to do so in a way that will be upheld which ever way his judgment were to go. That can cause a Judge some apoplexy, and given the nature of this case either way, is career defining. No judge on this case would not have to wrestle with personal welfare vs judicial conscience. This decision deserves what ever time the judge needs. I will note that Orly’s consitutuional arguments we very well crafted. I do not know what Kreep came in with, but I think Orley’s work will carry the day. Pray for the this Judge to decide with courage.

  12. Cody Judy   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM

    Gosh I think this a good sign and I will elaborate. In my experience, when a Judge rules in a hearing his opinion was formed before the hearing and the hearing was only a formality.
    In reading what happened and considering the Judge’s actual questions it appears he is being very careful, and is positioning himself and the case for what he knows will come; an Appeal from his decision from either side, which could hault proceedings until Appeal was setteled.
    The questions he asked as far as “actual injury related to “standing” and on what basis his court could issue a quo warrento proceeding, when the D.C. court had jurisdiction over this kind of proceeding. This allowed discussion of a potential hazard of Appeal by Defendents. Dr. Orly Taitz responded by citing precedents in the 9th Circuit, that allowed quo warrento proceedings to be held in California, rather than in Washington, D.C.
    As far as “standing”, while Orly has thought the military’s issue on standing was greater than the other political canididates, she may need to reconsider. The political race and it’s fatalities poses a more direct hit, than the subsequent oaths of conscience from the military secondly or indirectly from the consequences of the race.

  13. Pingback: Obama hearing Monday 10/5/2009 8AM U.S. District Court Santa Ana, CA. - Page 2 - Christian Forums

  14. Terry Z   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:33 PM

    Just my 2 cents on this whole issue…

    I am hoping that Judge Carter will allow the case to go forward as the American people DO have a stake in all decisions Obama makes as President. The DOJ lawyers argue that a district court has no right & any decisions should be governed by Congress or Electoral Board. This is ridiculas as those in control will just side with obama as they have total control…

    The ONLY way I think it would be FAIR is to have 4 members from all 3 parties, GOP, Democrats, & Ind. form a board or special commitee to look over all Obama’s vital records & then make a decision based on what the records show… Any Decisions MUST have ALL parties agree… Regardless this issue MUST be settled so that the citizens know positively that the person holding the highest office in the country meaning – PRESIDENT is qualified & more importantly is eligible to hold this office. IF NOT then he must step down or be REMOVED!!

    Lastly, if it is uncovered that ANYONE is guilty of covering up the truth for this critical issue should also be made to stepdown – then also prosecuted… as Obama has stated many times – NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW – which includes the President & all gov’t officials… PERIOD!!

  15. Sunnstarr   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 4:00 PM

    Does Judge Carter realize how much damage Obama is causing this country on a daily basis?

    Please read the article “You Can’t Say That”, posted on The Weekly Standard today and linked below, to see the latest example:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/043ytrhc.asp

    Most folks have not fully realized what the ‘Founding Fathers’ were afraid of when they attempted to protect us from divided loyalties in the White House. We now have a clear record of those dangers from Obama. Only by understanding Obama’s Muslim ideology can one understand his actions in the past 9 months.

    Obama has effectively deceived half of this nation, and through corruption and intimidation, he continues to control the Justice Department. Having his Attorney General Eric Holder showing up and intimidating judges across the country should surprise no one. Having not a single judge stand up to these thugs surprises me however. I do not believe that Judge Carter is the type to be intimidated – but the issues of law he has to consider must include the validity of pushing this case up to the Supreme Court.

    Hopefully Judge Carter will realize that he has to take a stand and run point on this. Upholding the Constitution is not only his obligation but his privilege.

    The future of this country is in his hands. Let’s pray he finds the wisdom to make the right decision.

  16. Fr33dom   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    We must not forget that the voting ballot boxes are illegal, or ‘fixed’, so how do we actually vote for the person we are voting for, without doing what they do in the MiddleEast? They use some sort of stay on ink they dip their finger in. Do we have that option, rather then to use the crooked ballot boxes?
    Otherwise, it is impossible to have an honest election. Plus, how do we move away from the candidate with the most money, or the most … and I forgot what it is called. Where people pay for the votes?

  17. Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for Lady Liberty before Carter’s Bench « [thepostnemail.wordpress.com] on Topsy.com

  18. Karl Anti marx   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 3:08 PM

    The standing is easy if indeed someone is not qualified to be President and has become President. Then the standing is clear.
    The Courts do have the power to decide issues like this when the legislative branch fails to do so. It as much as it is the Courts role to act as a “backstop” for our Country’s ambitions. The laws that protect us have to be protected by the Courts. To suggest the Courts do not have the right to hear this case is a ‘restrictive lawyers chance that a Judge will
    cave in to political pressure”. I think that anyone who has a ‘security clearance” and as the lives of others in their hands would gladly want to prove their legal status.

  19. Karl Anti marx   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:57 PM

    I think the Judge has to aloow discovery. The fact he stated
    that there is no precedence. Is acutally the path to which he will be allowed to hear this case. All Courts in out land have the power to Hear cases in which the existance of your Country is at State. He therefore, has a duty to Hear the case.

  20. Observer   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:55 PM

    Sorry, but I thought of another question. If the judge spoke to this case being unique without guidance of precedent, did either counsel speak to this then being a now or never case to openly settle the ongoing questions that are now probably not only in the minds of American citizens but also those of the whole world? IOW, how did they respond to this statement?

  21. kc   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    with respect to Judge Carters thoughts I think he will not dismiss the case but aske the defandants and the plaintiffs to
    further their request by submitting their view as to how he will set the “precedent”. It is within this concept that the argument
    should made when a Court does not have a precedent then
    it is within any Courts power to find one. This case frankly, is not bound by the DC superior Court. All Courts have a duty to uphold our laws, and therefore have the power to do so.

  22. Observer   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:50 PM

    JC, could you ask the question if the judge differentiated between standing of the military and standing of those like Keyes with injury from competing with an alleged fraudulent candidate?

    Also, how did the judge respond to the defendants” couching this as a “political question” when the plaintiffs argue a Constitutional question – which the judge had earlier implied needed to be resolved.

    Thanks so much.

  23. Pingback: TAITZ AND KREEP TOGETHER CONVINCE JUDGE NOT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF MOTION TO DISMISS TODAY « Count Us Out

  24. John Charlton   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:30 PM

    I am going to interview Mr. Charles Lincoln, shortly: if ANY of YOU have questions for him about the hearing, or the case, post them here, and I will try to incorporate them into the interview.

  25. Leon Brozyna   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM

    The question foremost in my mind now is, wil there be a new hearing date set or will Judge Carter issue a ruling from within chambers? At least it sounds like he appreciates that the circumstances in this case are unique. It’s not as if the plaintiffs are suing for a perceived wrong due to a particular law. The issue here is more profound and far reaching.

    Now we have to wait again.

    Leon Brozyna
    CW2, USA (Ret)

  26. Bob   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM

    From what I have read from various sources, it is impossible to predict how Judge Carter will rule —

    What next?

    The Congressional elections for 2010 are next. There are a number of candidates who entered Congress largely as a result of major dissatisfaction with incumbent Republicans.

    There is no reason to believe that the major dissatisfaction with the incumbents has cooled any. But now the incumbents are Democrats.

    The best time to pick them off is 2010, if you live in a Congressional District with a newcomer to Congress.

  27. Pingback: Politicaldoc’s Dx

  28. Observer   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 1:00 PM

    http://twitter.com/tesibria

    Latest says that hearing over – Judge to consider arguments and rule later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.