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

Welcome Back!


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.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. It seems like every citizen of the United States has standing, because to this point we seem to have been robbed of a fair election, voting for someone who has not proved his legal citizenship. Obama obfuscates the facts. He lies by omission. Maybe this is something that has already occured to everyone. Why don’t We The People have standing?

  2. I like your blog by the way!

    Interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that addresses the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and AFTER THE ELECTION judicial action; of which appear to be weighing heavily into Judge Carter’s decisions to proceed or not. Very encouraging and hope Taitz and Kreep pickup on it.

    Mr. Charlton repliesThis certainly looks like an interesting case;but it seems to have been pulled from the webserver of the Arkansas Supreme Court. If anyone can get the PDF copy, please email it to me.

  3. Thank you so much for this insightful interview and for asking our questions.

    Over and over it has been hard to believe that more emphasis has not been made in these hearings re: what “discovery” has already been established – that of the man himself’s declaration about his own British citizenship at birth and the nuances of British law that must also be resolved re: his present British citizenship status. This, to my mind, would be evidence that would point to the need for greater discovery on the Constitutional question – eliminating the political question. I just can’t believe that Orly hasn’t repeated this known British citizenry – if, for nothing else but to begin the education of these judges on the question. None of them seem to be at all up to snuff about such questions that do provide guidance since there is precedent argument already established. Outside of that a lot of other arguments begin to sound to judges like inference or even conspiracy stuff.

  4. Dr. Taitz, Mr. Charlton
    I beleive that Amendment 10 to the Constitution gives to the people , power to ask Obama to prove he is qualified to be President under the Constistution article 2 sect 1.

    Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note:

    The powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    The constitution sates what the qualifications are to be president, but it does not specify what or who has the
    power to require verification.

    Amendment 10 staes: powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Therefore the people have the power to require verification, because of the 10th amendment .

    The argument over standing is invalidated by Amendment 10 to the Constitution

    Therefore Dr. Taitz wins Obama loses!

    From Wikkepedia:


    The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

    1 Text
    2 History and case law
    2.1 Forced participation or commandeering
    2.2 Commerce clause
    2.3 Federal funding
    3 State sovereignty resolutions and nullification acts
    4 Footnotes
    5 External links

    [edit] Text
    “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

    [edit] History and case law
    The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”[1] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”

    From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

    The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers…..

    see the rest by clicking the wikkepedia link.

    Tony Palmieri

  5. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could and should take a stand on the Constitution and simply request that Obama establish as a fact that he is a natural born citizen per Article II. If Obama cannot do that–and he cannot, or he would have done so long ago–he should be persuaded or forced to resign and be deported.

    This scenario becomes more likely if Judge Carter denies standing to Capt. Barnett et al. Then the military option is all that’s left unless Leo Donofrio succeeds in having a special prosecutor take the case under quo warranto in D.C.

    D.C. is the viper’s pit, so I suspect that eventually only the military, standing on the Constitution, will be able to remove Obama. Question is, will the brass have the balls?

  6. Why can’t military who have been injured in Afghanistan or Irak have standing for INJURIES ???

    Obviously, we all should have standing on the taxation issue, but I think the “standing” excuse is just so they do not have to tackle the issue in any way.

    Of course, there has been no precedent !! Who would have thought this whole thing was possible in the first place. It just goes to show that there was a lot of complicity at many levels to have succeeded in parachuting an ineligible person in the highest position.

    This is indeed a serious matter especially since we are seeing the consequences of his actions on our economy, our liberties, etc. after such a short time. We really cannot afford to delay action for too long. One of these judges is going to have to take the bull by the horns and be courageous.

  7. The issue of ‘spirit of the law vs. letter of the law’ in this case boils down to this: What did the Founding Fathers have in mind when they specified the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President of the United States in the Constitution? The answer is obviously avoidance of “divided loyalty”.

    This takes me back to square one and to my original question about Obama: Why did he feel compelled to go to Kenya and support his cousin Odinga, in light of the fact that Odinga had a deal with the radical Muslims of Kenya and Somalia to introduce Sharia Law as the one and only law in Kenya once he was elected? This at a time when the U.S. was (and obviously still is) at war with Radical Islam!!! Is this not enough proof that Obama has divided loyalties?

    Why is this fundamental issue not being discussed in this case?!?

    Has everyone become so entangled in the details and legal chess games afoot that they cannot grasp the root of the argument?

    Obama’s ability to lie, over and over, straight-faced into the camera to the American people has no defense. His record is clear. No Christian would skip over Prayer Day in the U.S., support abortion in its most extreme sense, skip services on his first Easter Holiday in office, etc., etc.

    All of his actions and his most passionate speeches here and abroad are influenced by his Muslim faith. Even Gadaffi and Farrakhan hail him as a Muslim brother. He bows down to the Saudi King and receives a golden medal from him, he cancels plans for missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to help Iran with their nuclear weapon plans, he hides the fact that he has already made a deal with the United Arab Emirates to hand them nuclear technology, and on and on.

    Obama betrays Israel in every way possible. He begins releasing terrorists and captured enemy combatants, promising ‘Miranda Rights’ to future detainees. He surrenders our sovereignty as a nation at the G-20 and blatantly begins the deconstruction of our Independence and our Monetary System in favor of his New World Order “socialist view of the world”. He criticizes the Constitution and agrees to do away with the dollar – but not before using TARP funds and Stimulus money to pay off his Wall Street friends and benefactors. Chicago-style corruption is exploding all over the country.

    What more do Americans need to prove he is a fraud and needs to be removed in a legal and orderly way?

    If not Judge Carter, then who?

    The Supreme Court is powerless to do anything until all other options are exhausted. The placement of Sotomayor is null and void if the President is illegal and un-Constitutional.

    Biden and Pellosi are both compromised legally, as is Hillary Clinton. McCain has proven himself to be weak in his pursuit of a ‘moderate’ position and seems more interested in warming his seat in the Senate than standing up for what he knows is right. Only women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Orly Taitz are fearless enough and have enough honor and integrity to tell us the truth – only to be ignored and demonized by our out-of-control liberal media!

    How could all of Congress, the CIA, the FBI, and our Military allow this to happen?

    Someone needs to set things right. History will not be kind to cowards. God help us all if we continue to ignore this much longer. Staying positive is so extremely difficult, and our tendency to loose faith in human nature is strong, but we must persevere. Our children and our children’s children will look back on this time and know who we were when it really counted. I pray we will not let them down.

  8. Okay, I’m not a lawyer, but here’s my 2¢ worth.

    First though, thanks for doing the interview and thanks also to Mr. Lincoln.

    I’m glad you mentioned the point that was made and I’ve seen in a number of blogs: “Judge Carter pointed out that the case was unique and that there were no precedents to guide him thoroughly.” Here, for the first time, we have a case of the usurpation of power. I think that Judge Carter understands that this case represents new judicial territory. There is little in the way of judicial precedent to guide him.

    If Judge Carter grants motion to dismiss, Orly will probably have to come up with a novel way of addressing the issue of standing without the use of hot rhetoric (even though I would probably agree with what she might say). Right now, I’m at a loss as to how to nail the issue of standing. This is why the point of this being a unique set of circumstances (as mentioned by Carter) might be a good starting point. As for the issue of this being political, this should be fought back as being not about politics but a serious Constitutional issue. I think that Judge Carter appreciates this point. As I mentioned on another blog, if Republican Bobby Jindal decides to run in 2012, we’ll have this problem again. While this rising young star of the GOP was born in the U.S., his parents had not been naturalized when he was born, so according to Vattel, he is not a natural born citizen, even if he is a U.S. citizen by birth. The country needs the judiciary to step up to the plate and finally make an official definition of what a natural born citizen is. Lawyers will always skirt around Vattel; if the definition is not finally codified, we’ll have this problem again; let’s get it codified.

    If this does have to be appealed, I hope that Orly will shorten the whole case down as much as possible to the most critical point – what is a natural born citizen? How can we get the courts to finally codify this term so it can’t be weaseled around by a bunch of third-rate party hack lawyers.

    Now all we can do is wait and see how long it will take for Judge Carter to rule and the way he’ll rule. Then we’ll know how much more help Orly will need.

    Leon Brozyna
    CW2, USA (Ret)

    P.S. Now I think I’ll open that big bottle of rum and see if it makes me feel better after today’s wishy-washy showing.