If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
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.
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.