IN VIOLATION OF 14 U.S.C. § 242 — HE HAS USED HIS AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE FREESE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
by John Charlton
(Oct. 30, 2009) — If there is any member of the Federal Judiciary who should be prosecuted for using his authority to deprive citizens of their intangible rights, it is Judge David. O Carter, of the Middle District, Southern Division, in Santa Ana, California.
Let’s put Judge Carter on trial then, in the public forum, and consider his actions in accord with law. First let’s consider the Federal Law codified in 14 U.S.C. § 242, which reads:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
That Judge Carter lives in a dream land, any objective observer would agree, since he pretends that Obama is a legitimate candidate for the U.S. Presidency, that Congress can change the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is — which no legal scholar has ever claimed — and that military personnel are traitors and guilty of insubordination if they don’t obey an illegitimate Commander-in-chief, or if they even question his illegitimacy.
One of the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama is on active military duty: Jason Freese. If Mr. Freese should be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, despite his protests, because of Carter’s ruling in Santa Ana yesterday, then he risks bodily injury; and if consequently injured, Carter’s ruling has led to a violation of 14 U.S.C. § 242.
And that is a death-penalty offense.
But even if he is not injured, his intangible rights are violated. Because it is obvious even to the untrained, that if I have a duty on account of a military oath taken, to not only obey orders in the legitimate chain of command, but aslo those from the Commander-in-chief: I have a right to see the evidence that such a Commander-in-chief is qualified and eligible to serve according to the requirements of the Constitution.
Note, that though this right is intangible, its injury is not speculative; nor is its injury conjectural; as it is a right which comes into being immediately upon taking the military oath and entering military service, wherein one is bound to the chain of command. Its injury is thus immediate and real when request for proof of this eligibility is denied, from the very moment the Supreme Court Justice swears in an ineligible candidate, and that usurper takes command of the military.
This is based on a fundamental principle of jurisprudence for the last 2,500 years: that for every duty there is a corresponding right, if the individual is a free agent, without which that duty would become a slavery, and liberty be extinguished.
Judge Carter — who does not deserve the title — has manifestly and expressly denied, by an official judicial act, Jason Freese of his intangible right, guaranteed by the 9th amendment!
That is a formal violation of 14 U.S.C. § 242.
Nor can Judge Carter exculpate himself, saying that he was only following orders — oops precedents! — because it is manifestly a form of erroneous jurisprudence to apply a precedent in a case wherein it was never intended to be applied; or in a case where it would negate or deny any intangible right.
Thus, Judge Carter cannot plead “precedents” to get himself off from conviction.
Nor can he plead unwilling ignorance, since he manifestly attempts to destroy the reputation of Freese’s counsel, Dr. Orly Taitz; a clear sign of prejudice and rancor on his part. In that he used pretense and dissimulation during the proceedings to give the appearance of impartiality, and in that he hired a lawyer with ties to the Obama adminstration; it seems very probable that he was also involved in a criminal conspiracy to deprive Freese of his rights; especially since his court refused to answer questions by World Daily Net regarding his appointment of Velarmoor.
David O. Carter will certainly be condemned in the court of public opinion for this abominable crime; but he ought to fear more his Eternal Judge, who is most severe with corrupt judges.