EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW ON THE MOTION HEARING IN SANTA ANA FEDERAL COURT, OCT 5
by John Charlton
© 2009 The Post & Email
(Oct. 5, 2009) — This morning the Motion Hearing in the case, Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., concluded at the Federal Court House in Santa Ana, California.
Prior to the hearing The Post & Email published its exclusive interview with the lead plaintiff, Captain Barnett.
Now The Post & Email has the unique opportunity to now publish for its readers the transcript of the interview it just conducted by phone, with Mr. Charles Lincoln III, the assistant to Dr. Orly Taitz, who was himself present for the hearing.
Please note, that The Post & Email in view of the importance of this case to the entire Nation is allowing bloggers to cite two or three questions, if they give a link; news agences must ask for release.
The Interview with Mr. Charles Lincoln, III
MR. CHARLTON: What Motions were before Judge Carter’s bench for consideration?
MR. LINCOLN: Pretty much only the Motion to Dismiss, and postponed the others.
MR. CHARLTON: What did Dr. Taitz and yourself reasonably hope to achieve today?
MR. LINCOLN: I supposed we would have like the MTD denied outright. Basically I think Judge Carter is aware the whole world is looking at him, and if he decides for the Plaintiffs that he is basically plunging the U.S. into the most severe constitutional crisis, and It think he is proceeding very carefully and avoid appearance of impropriety. He is a very decent man. He denied that he was called by Obama, on his own initiative, after Dr. Taitz gave speech on the dangers of communism taking over the government.. Had cited cases which neither side cited and done alot of research. Dr. Taitz gave her best presentation every and spoke very eloquently and passionately about all the keep issues.
MR. CHARLTON: Regarding the Motion to Dismiss brought forward by acting Attorney General George S. Cardona, lead counsel for the Defense; what questions did Judge Carter ask concerning the standing issues in general? And what responses did he get from both sides?
MR. LINCOLN: Its fairly clear that no Plaintiff in this case has suffered particularized injury in the traditional sense from the violation of Article II; Judge Carter therefore explored notions whether traditional notions can be applied. The Defense said yes, to deny; Plaintiffs if you deprive these of standing the Constitution is a dead letter and we pushed Flast vs Cohen, which is a case concerning the establishment clause decided during Warren years: its hard to show how any person can show particularized standing, yet if the use of taxpayer funds violate their first amendments rights, then they have to get standing. So while individual standing is hard to show, in this case it is easy and indisputable to show that Obama’s actions have an impact on everyone.
MR. CHARLTON: What questions did the Judge ask regarding the redressability issue of standing? And what responses did he get from both sides?
MR. LINCOLN: Asked a long sequence of questions and got no good answers: What does it look like if Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to run for president, what’s to keep him campaigning and if elected, how do we remove him? Basically the Govt. said impeachment, impeachment, there is no way but congressional removal; Plaintiffs raised the point that during the 70-80s, following Nixon, federal officers were appointed to remove officers, and basically the SCOTUS upheld the power of the courts to hear cases brought by special prosecutors to remove corrupt officials.
MR. CHARLTON: What questions did Judge Carter ask regarding the standing of political candidates, who were on a state ballot together with another candidate who was not eligible according to the U.S. Constitution? What kind of responses did he get from both sides?
MR. LINCOLN: I think he was sympathetic with this issue and that the Defense’s position was static and mean spirited; their argument that minor party candidates could not have won, missed the point, the people were entitled to vote in a fair and honest election; Plaintiffs argued that could anyone really say that if BO could not run for US Senate, that Keyes would not have taken that seat; and had he been the rising start of the black candidate, Keyes might have higher standing in the recent presidential election; Judge Carter did not like foregone conclusion argument used by the Defense that, what happened should be the rule looking forward.
MR. CHARLTON: What questions did the Judge ask regarding the standing of military personnel who were bound by oath to obey the Commander-in-Chief, when this office was usurped by an ineligible candidate? What kind of responses did he get from both sides?
MR. LINCOLN: Not satisfied with the answer to his question, whether plaintiff Lt. Freeze: will object to his deployment. He seemed very interested and kept fishing for something. Dr. Taitz used the Board of Education vs. Allen argument, that it was a material change in the duties imposed, you also have too look the other way in light of your oath if you see a major constitutional violation; and this is what we are saying in military cases, that the military are being told not to take their oath seriously; and this is the message being sent to the army: “if you are ordered to do something illegal forget about your oath to uphold the constitution.” He cited a line of 9th Circuit cases limiting the oath standing in Board of Eduction vs Allen, and indicated that these precedents are binding on him.
MR. CHARLTON: Did Judge Carter give any indication to a divergence in his view regarding the standing of political candidates who claim injury and military personnel claiming injury?
MR. LINCOLN: I don’t believe he showed divergence on this issued.
MR. CHARLTON: Did Judge Carter give any indication of his views, regarding the “political question” doctrine of standing as it applies to the unique circumstances of this case? What questions did he ask, what responses did he get?
MR. LINCOLN: He actually did, and seems to be very skeptical of the “political question” doctrine and cited a whole series of cases in which, some of the Guantanamo cases, in which the “political question” doctrine was eviscerated, and I don’t think that if he does deny standing that will be a basis of the “political question” doctrine.
MR. CHARLTON: What did the Judge say about FOIA standing? And did he ask questions? Or was his mind made up, on the basis of the pleadings received?
MR. LINCOLN: Unfortunately very little, that was not something that got a lot of play today. That was one of the big disappointments in my mind. I think that the first EO should have been brought to court’s attention, and I think it can and should be argued that any attempt of quo warrento would have been frustrated, unless it be shown unconstitutional and that the EO obstructs quo warrento in any forum.
MR. CHARLTON: What did Judge Carter say in general and specifically in regard to California, regarding quo warrento?
MR. LINCOLN: Plaintiffs argued that under the principles of choice of law, since all plaintiffs are in CA and defendants in DC, the choice of law principles of CA are always applied to determine the Courts jursidiction; and there is a strong case in CA regarding the govt. interest test; and DC clearly has and is entrusted with adjudicating disputes on quo warrento, so we argued that for purposes of this case adopt quo warrento and apply it. Judge Carter was surprised by this argument, but did not let on whether he was moved by either side’s view. His biggest problem about dismissing case is that the Judiciary should hear the cases people bring before him. He is concerned that there is no individualized injury, so all the jurisprudence about standing since Flast vs. Cohen is strict and restrictive.
MR. CHARLTON: Was Flast vs. Cohen discussed, regarding tax-payer standing?
MR. LINCOLN: If he accepts case at all it will be on general principles on Flast vs Cohen or 9th amendment standing, and is one point in which Attorney Taitz and Attorney Kreep agree, constitutional suits by citizens must be allowed.
MR. CHARLTON: Does Judge Carter accept the 9th Amendment?
MR. LINCOLN: He has a general prejudice in favor of the people to the right to bring suit.
MR. CHARLTON: Does Judge Carter hold that We the People are sovereign?
MR. LINCOLN: Not today.
MR. CHARLTON: Does Judge Carter seem to be interested more in following precedent in the 9th Federal Circuit or upholding the Constitution?
MR. LINCOLN: Orly feels that Judge Carter has radically changed the favorable demeanor and positive attitude he had shown towards this case in July and even September, when he almost appeared to be all-but-promising to deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. Orly felt that Carter backtracked from this extremely favorable position; I believe that Judge Carter really wants the courts to be open to the resolution of this case, but that he cannot afford to give the appearance of improper partiality. I thought, simply, that Judge Carter was behaving as an extremely thoughtful and well-informed judge. We know a judge reads newspapers and is aware of the consequence of his actions and that he is aware of the crisis he will cause if he grants plaintiffs standing. Judges are taught that part of the purpose in life is to maintain order and not radicalize opposition. Its almost impossible to predict where he is going; he was more formal and less chatty.
MR. CHARLTON: Does Judge Carter seem to be an originalist, or a living-Constitution theorist?
MR. LINCOLN: I got not feel for originalism from him at all, but neither that the Constitution is a colony of amoeba which grows; he feels the fixed nature of the Article II is a valid point; that Congressional inaction or action cannot amend the constitutional. He not a Larry Tribe nor a Carl Sustein, nor is is a Bork he is a moderate.
MR. CHARLTON: Was discovery discussed? Were specific individuals named regarding depositions? A Schedule?
MR. LINCOLN: The schedule would be whatever the parties agree to; if he grants the Motion to Dismiss, discovery becomes moot and if there is an interlocutory appeal that will also interfere; in regard to being questioned when he is going to decide the MTD, he said light-heartedly: “I promise a decision no sooner than one day and no later than one year.”
MR. CHARLTON: Did Dr. Taitz present any evidence not on the docket as of yesterday? Specifically can you confirm or deny that she is in possession of the 11th page of the Dunham-Obama Divorce filing; or of any other document citing a foreign birth?
MR. LINCOLN: I have no information about this. I am not dealing with the evidence in this case. I don’t believe so, but I have never asked.
MR. CHARLTON: Is it possible that Judge Carter will request arguments from both sides regarding supporting a ruling which would not have precedents, in either’s favor? Is this done, and how would it be done?
MR. LINCOLN: It’s possible, but I did not hear anything that he would do that, but near the end he asked how to write the ruling; Plaintiffs argued “decide everything.”
MR. CHARLTON: What do you think is the likelihood that Carter will grant at least some plaintiffs standing? Will he make his decision in an in-chambers order, or at another hearing?
MR. LINCOLN: It will be a written order; and we expect this; I doubt that some plaintiffs and not all, the strongest standing claims are Flast vs. Cohen and the 9th Amendment; he was not impressed by oath arguments or political candidates standing: I predict it will be all or none.
MR. CHARLTON: If Judge Carter grants the Motion to Dismiss regarding all Plaintiffs, will you appeal? To the 9th Circuit, or to the Supreme Court? What if he denies it.
MR. LINCOLN: It has to be the 9th circuit, and yes, there is no chance on earth that Orly will give up the case at this stage. If he denies the Motion to Dismiss, the Defense certainly will an interlocutory appeal. Interlocutory appeals don’t always stop cases, but threshold issues when appealed stop the case going forward; its not a question of discovery law, when some evidence can be.
MR. CHARLTON: H did the parties respond to Carter’s comment that there is no precedent for this case? If there is no precedence, does he not have to at least allow discovery, to see if there is a basis for the claimed injury?
MR. LINCOLN: Standing is a question of law, unless there is a question of who and to what degree was injured, and since no plaintiffs are alleging a disputed injury, there is no logical way of having discovery before the standing is considered. The ruling limiting discovery before this hearing closed down all discovery, and I don think its going to happen any time soon.
MR. CHARLTON: Was the definition of a natural born citizen even discussed, or did Carter pussy foot around it as if it were a non-issue?
MR. LINCOLN: It was discussed in terms of hypotheticals, such as McCain born on a military base or in Canal Zone; or at Ramstein in Germany; he was concerned and considered it very insulting to wives of service men to hold that their children were not natural born citizens. The British citizenship of Obama Sr. was not discussed by anyone. Vattel was not explicitly discussed.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.