Spread the love


by David F. LaRocque

Judge David O. Carter was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1998

(Aug. 22, 2010) — On August 11, 2010, an Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Dr. Orly Taitz, in the case Pamela Barnett, Alan Keyes, et al v. Barack Obama et al. This appeal is seeking to overturn the decision of Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in an order of dismissal issued on October 29, 2009. The grounds for the appeal are based on an assertion that the “District Court acted with bias, lack of impartiality, and under improper and undue influence from (the) Obama administration.”

The original case was filed on January 20, 2009 on behalf of over 40 plaintiffs, including many retired officers and enlisted members of the U.S. military, Ambassador Alan Keyes (2008 presidential candidate of the American Independent Party), and Gail Lightfoot (a Libertarian Party member and write-in candidate for vice president). The plaintiffs were seeking “a judicial review and declaratory relief on the issue of legitimacy for the U.S. presidency and (the) position of Commander-in-Chief by Barack Hussein Obama.”

The brief goes on to assert that “there is ample evidence of his (Obama’s) illegitimacy to (the) U.S. presidency due to his use of another person’s Social Security number…; due to the lack of his long-form birth certificate with the names of a doctor and a hospital; due to the fact that his mother’s passport records show a different last name for him (Obama); and other records and national data-bases show(ing) him (Obama) using multiple Social Security numbers, several different names, different birthdates, and different countries of origin.”

A similar suit was filed by a second attorney, Gary Kreep, representing plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson. This lawsuit was later merged with the Barnett action, over the objections of both attorneys, in a hearing before Judge Carter on July 13, 2009.

When the plaintiffs and their attorneys learned that the district court judge assigned to the case was Judge David O. Carter, they were elated and greatly encouraged. Judge Carter is a graduate of both UCLA and the UCLA School of Law, and a highly experienced and respected jurist. Judge Carter has a background as a criminal prosecutor and as a professor at several institutions, including the University of California at Irvine, where he has received the school’s Distinguished Professor Award three times. He also lectures frequently at judicial conferences worldwide, and at the California Judges College, the Judicial Criminal Law Institute, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

In addition to his excellent legal background, Judge Carter is a war hero. He served as a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, with combat duty in the Vietnam War, where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sanh in early 1968 when the Marine Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) was under siege for 77 days.

A Wikipedia entry describes the conclusion of that battle:

During the battle a massive aerial bombardment campaign (Operation Niagara) was launched by the U.S. Air Force to support the Marine base. This campaign used the latest technological advances in order to locate PAVN (People’s Army of Vietnam) forces for targeting. The logistical effort to support KSCB, once it was isolated overland, demanded the implementation of other tactical innovations in order to keep the Marines supplied.

In March 1968, an overland relief expedition (Operation Pegasus) was launched by a combined Marine/Army/South Vietnamese task force that eventually broke through to the Marines at Khe Sanh. The battle was a tactical victory for the Marines, although it had no clear strategic implications; some historians have observed that the PAVN frontier battles prior to the general Tet Offensive of early 1968 served to distract American and GVN attention as Viet Cong forces were assembled.

Marine First Lieutenant David O. Carter was awarded a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star (the fourth-highest combat award of the U.S. armed forces) for his bravery under fire at the Battle of Khe Sanh.

To the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, Judge David O. Carter seemed like an answer to their prayers. How could they ask for a more perfect judge? In a case which required a combination of an extraordinary judicial temperament, demonstrated courage, and unquestioned loyalty to the United States Constitution, Judge Carter seemed to have all of these qualities in abundance. Moreover, since there were strong indications of serious criminal acts of election fraud in the events leading up to the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election, it was felt that Judge Carter (given his prosecutorial background) was likely to share the plaintiffs’ desire to see the case heard on its merits, and that he would insure that an appropriate judicial environment was maintained to insure that would happen.

The first hearing in the case was held in the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, CA on July 13, 2009 with Judge Carter presiding. Interested citizens lined up early outside the courthouse for security screening. After a lengthy delay, the courtroom was finally opened for seating.  This writer was an eyewitness to the proceedings.

Once the hearing got under way, it seemed to bog down in a lengthy dispute over the question of whether an amended complaint was properly served on the defendants by Attorney Taitz. Later in the hearing, it became apparent that there were problems between the attorney for Drake and Robinson  (Mr. Kreep), and the attorney for the Barnett plaintiffs (Dr. Taitz).

The central issue in dispute was between the respective attorneys regarding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution. Attorney Kreep insisted that the Constitution does not require U.S. citizenship of both parents, while Attorney Taitz argued that this requirement is intrinsic to the Article II requirements.

Attorney Taitz was seeking a separation of the cases for trial. However, Judge Carter would not accept the prospect of the two cases being tried separately, insisting that a higher court would eventually merge them in any case, and that the goal of an expeditious resolution of the case on its merits would be best served by merging the cases. The respective attorneys finally agreed to combine the cases under protest after a private discussion also witnessed by this writer during a lengthy recess but failed to resolve their differences.

Setting aside the lengthy interchanges which took place over the issues described above, the remaining portion of the proceedings dealing with the substantive issues of the case was relatively short. During that time, the following comments were made by Judge Carter and have been excerpted from the official transcript of the proceedings:

P. 48: “I wish this would be resolved on its merits quickly…he’s either not president or he is.”

P. 52: “I mean, if he’s not president, he shouldn’t be president; and if he is, he should be. And we need to resolve this on the merits.”

P. 37  “If he doesn’t meet the criteria, he’s not the president of the United States.”

P. 53: “When you come back to this court, I’m going to be putting a lot of pressure on both of you to produce. And therefore …expect this case to move.”

P. 53: “So if you want this case expedited, I’ll expedite it, and I’ll get the documents in front of this court, I mean immediately. There’s no question about that.

(To Plaintiff’s counsel) Because if you’re correct, then from your perspective and the country’s perspective, he’s not president.

(To U.S. Attorney) If you’re correct, we set this aside immediately. It’s done and the country isn’t sitting there wondering who the Commander-in-Chief is or who the President of the United States is.”(Emphasis added)

P. 58: “I think we finally got it into a posture that we can decide it on the merits.”(Emphasis added)

When the hearing ended, the plaintiffs and their attorneys felt confident that there would be no dismissal of this case on the technicality of “standing” (as had occurred in several other prominent eligibility cases), and that it would finally be heard on its merits by Judge Carter. Further, the plaintiffs felt that those merits would be very strong, probably even conclusive, once the fruits of the discovery phase of the trial became available.

Then, in early October, word came out that something very strange had happened. Judge Carter had hired a new law clerk, but not just any law clerk.

Judge Carter could have hired a law clerk from among the recent graduates of any one of a number of fine law schools (including his alma mater, the UCLA School of Law) or from any one of hundreds of elite law firms in California and across the country. Instead he hired Siddharth Velamoor, from the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, the firm which represented the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and the firm where Obama’s White House Counsel Robert Bauer was formerly a partner.  Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, former White House Director of Communications, who is infamous for her publicly-expressed deep admiration for the political philosophy of Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in the history of mankind according to author and former Red Guard Jung Chang  in her masterpiece biography of Mao entitled Mao: The Unknown Story.

Here is Attorney Taitz on the Velamoor engagement:

While originally the presiding judge, David O. Carter seemed to be willing to show some impartiality, it quickly dissipated from the beginning of October 2009, when Judge Carter hired as his law clerk an attorney, Sidharth Velamoor, (a former) employee of Perkins Coie, that represented Obama in most of the litigation where Obama’s eligibility was challenged. Moreover, White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner in Perkins Coie, and personally opposed (both) Taitz and Kreep in a prior similar action.

Velamoor not only came from Obama’s defense firm, he also had a peculiar similarity to Obama in his education and background. Velamoor is listed in some of his curricula vitae as graduating from Columbia Law School, while others show him graduating from an obscure Commenis Law School in Slovakia. Obama is known as a person who has sealed most of his vital records, among them his Columbia University records. It is not clear how much time Obama spent actually studying at Columbia University, how much did he spend abroad, specifically in Pakistan, and got equivalency credits from Columbia, just as Velamoor.

To say that the Barnett plaintiffs were stunned on hearing this news is putting it mildly. This astonishing new development was not only unbelievable; it was incomprehensible. How could this happen in America? On the face of it, this surprising action by Judge Carter was so far outside the norm of appropriate judicial conduct that it seemed unimaginable. It even gave off an odor of corruption and manipulation of the judiciary that was so out of character with what we knew of Judge Carter that one had to wonder – what was the nature of the pressure that was brought to bear on Judge Carter that he would even entertain such a course of action?

To the Barnett plaintiffs and their attorneys, it seemed that Barack Obama had literally stepped into Judge Carter’s court room and sneered at us, telling us literally that “I have so much power that you cannot touch me! I am untouchable and I will do as I please.”

A second hearing was held on October 5, 2009 at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, CA, again with Judge Carter presiding which this writer attended. The security procedures upon entering the courthouse had tightened considerably, and security personnel reviewed identification, recorded names and addresses, and issued security badges to all attendees. After the courtroom was opened for seating, it soon filled to capacity. In order to accommodate the unseated observers, Judge Carter arranged for a second courtroom with closed-circuit TV for viewing of the proceedings.

Once the hearing commenced, a change in tone became immediately apparent. It seemed that Judge Carter was much more skeptical of the plaintiff’s case, and noticeably more adversarial in his exchanges with Attorney Taitz. In an affidavit regarding this hearing which I provided in connection with the August 11 appeal, I stated that “I thought (the) change in Judge Carter’s demeanor from one hearing to the (October 5) hearing…was striking and quite surprising.” Another affiant made a similar statement in her affidavit: “After the hearing a large group of people met outside and declared that we couldn’t believe the change in the judge’s demeanor. One of the gentlemen, who said that he had known Judge Carter for a long time, stated that he had never seen him like that before.”

On October 29, 2009, a not unexpected but nevertheless extremely disappointing favorable ruling on Obama’s Motion for Dismissal was released by Judge Carter in the Barnett case. Here are the words of Judge Carter (if these are in fact his words) in what the Barnett plaintiffs feel was a betrayal of the American people:

Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction…between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912) Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the court in that process.

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People” – over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

THERFORE, for the reason stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.


DATED: October 29, 2009




United States District Judge

Well, what do you think of that?

Do those words sound like the words of Judge David O. Carter as we heard him on July 13, 2009? Or do those words sound eerily similar to the words of so many uttered against the so-called “birthers” which have appeared in the mainstream media? Is it possible that those words could have come from one Robert Bauer?

More importantly, what if the president is not the president? If the person sworn into office as president is not constitutionally qualified to serve in that office, is he, in fact, the president? How does the Constitution “limit the reach of the federal courts” to provide a remedy in this situation, when it is apparent that numerous criminal acts must have taken place for the conspiring parties to have installed an ineligible person in the office of President of the United States?

What if the putative president is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born Citizen, as the Constitution requires?

What legally admissible evidence do the American people have that Barack Obama is, in fact, a U.S. citizen, or that he is eligible to serve in the office of president?

If we cannot get such evidence from you, Judge Carter, and Congress will not get it, and Obama will not provide it, where do we get it?

What if the election process which put this man’s purported election before the Electoral College was characterized by massive election fraud to a degree never before seen in this country?

What if the members of Congress, who ratified the results of the Electoral College vote, failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to verify that the person elected to the office of president was constitutionally eligible to serve?

What if the sixty-nine million people who voted for Barack Obama believed, in error, that he was actually eligible to serve as president according to the Constitution when they voted for him, as they were assured by those functionaries of the Obama campaign who presented only forged documents on the internet as proof of such eligibility?

And finally, Judge Carter, how do you square your ruling with the words of Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison:

The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

I ask you, sir – if Article II of the United States Constitution sets forth certain unequivocal and indisputable requirements to serve in the office of president, do those requirements not imply the existence of a “vested legal right” of the people to have a constitutionally-qualified president”?

And if the person elected to that office has not only failed to demonstrate conformance with those requirements, but has refused to do so;

And if the Congress refuses to act to resolve this controversy;

And if the courts repeatedly refuse to hear cases brought before them which seek a remedy for this violation of the vested legal right of the people to have a constitutionally-qualified president on the grounds of the “mere technicalities” you cite, then:

Where, sir, do the people go to find a remedy in the law to their inability to enforce their vested legal right to a constitutionally-qualified president?

And more importantly, does the government of the United States remain a government of laws and not of men, as it was described by Justice Marshall, or has our government ceased to deserve this high appellation?

Join the Conversation


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. A simple explanation to your family, friends and neighbors who do not
    yet grasp the citizenship issue…….

    Obama was born half-black and half white. He was also born half British and half US American.
    We simply cannot have a President in charge of our military making war and peace decisions based in any
    way upon what British citizens think and do.

  2. I have this problem with the Lucas Smith BC:
    The dates are in American order, MM/DD/YYYY
    In Europe, and also the colonies they use DD/MM/YYYY.
    One document from Kenya 1961 that I could find on the internet had clearly the European dates.
    Of course on a birthday like 8/4/1961 it could be either way. April ot August.
    But the whole BC does not make sense then.
    I know people had mentioned that before, but I have never heard an acceptable explaination.

    1. I suggest you listen to the Lucas Smith interview.

      We are not forensic document analysts, so we cannot know anything with certainty about this document until it is examined by a professional document analyst.

      The story Lucas Smith tells has the ring of truth. He says he was in Kenya on other business, heard about this controversy, and decided to investigate on his own in Mombasa.

      He said he had to pay bribes of $200 first, then a second bribe of $500 just to get to the person who could deliver a document. Then he had to pay $5000 to that person for delivery within an hour (to preclude creation of a forged document). He has impressed a number of people with his credibility, including Steve Cooper, the interviewer. He calls himself Inspector Smith – I don’t know if that means anything, but he has the demeanor of a professional investigator and he seems to know how to handle himself in a third world environment.

      Lucas claims he has successfully countered all challenges he has received concerning the credibility of the document. I believe he covered the date format issue in one of his videos.

      He seems to be as desirous of finding the truth of Obama’s origins as we are. I don’t believe he is the type of person who would send us all on a wild goose chase. In addition, I don’t think he would be sending a forged document to 535 members of Congress by certified mail.

      With all that said, the Kenyan BC in Lucas Smith’s possession may turn out to be a forgery. If so, so be it. It doesn’t change anything with respect to either Obama’s lack of a valid birth certificate, or the parental citizenship element of the NBC definition.

      In fact, it just serves to emphasize how absurd this whole scandal has become. Whoever heard of a president who refuses to provide a legitimate birth certificate, causing enormous inconvenience, anxiety, and frustration to countless people around the world trying to clear up this mystery? This is the kind of convoluted story one encounters in a Vince Flynn novel, but the real life of Barack Obama is truly stranger than fiction.

      Of course, the Kenyan B.C. could turn out to be authentic, allowing the people to quickly bring this national tragedy to an end; allowing the people to render justice to the perpetrators and to begin to repair the enormous damage done to this nation by the conspirators in this giant hoax against the American people, in their failed attempt to transform a nation of liberty into a Communist tyranny.

      1. quote:
        “Lucas claims he has successfully countered all challenges he has received concerning the credibility of the document. I believe he covered the date format issue in one of his videos.”

        I didn’t know that, will see if I can find that video.
        Thank you!
        Wonder what Lucas has to say about the date-problem.

    2. A final thought on Lucas Smith and the Kenyan birth certificate, since I will be away until Monday Aug 30 and will not be able to respond to further questions until then:

      The reaction of Obama’s attorneys to Lucas Smith and the Kenyan birth certificate was just the opposite of what one would expect. After all, the leftists have been hammering away for months on the theme that the so-called “birthers” are just a bunch of crazies and right wing racist wackos who cannot accept that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that he won the election. And Orly Taitz is portrayed as a loose cannon, and even a nut case by some, who is trying to use her questionable legal qualifications to overturn a valid presidential election in which “sixty-nine million” American people said they wanted Barack Obama for their president.

      So the appearance of Lucas Smith and his Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama at the Sept 8 hearing presented a golden opportunity for Obama’s lawyers to show the world just how crazy, irresponsible, and disreputable the “birthers” truly are.

      If Lucas Smith is a fraud, and his Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery, then Obama’s lawyers should have jumped at a chance to put him on the stand and tear him to pieces, and to take his Kenyan birth certificate into evidence and have it thoroughly examined and presumably revealed as a blatant forgery.

      Yet how did they react?

      They were terrified of Lucas Smith and his Kenyan birth certificate.

      They did not want to see or hear from Lucas Smith and they did not want Judge Carter to see or hear from Lucas Smith.

      They did not want to see a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama, and they certainly did not want Judge Carter to see such a document.

      What does that tell you?

  3. Thoughts about Lucas Smith and Judge Carter’s ruling

    Perhaps the most significant fact about the September 8, 2009 hearing in the Barnett case was the presence of Lucas Smith. I met Lucas and talked to him personally, as did several members of the press who were present. Lucas was carrying with him in a vinyl sheet protector a high-quality copy of the purported Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama.

    My sense of Lucas Smith was that he was a serious and credible individual. The document he displayed appeared on its face to be an authentic document, although that fact could not be established without a forensic analysis.

    When the subject of possible testimony by Lucas Smith came up during the hearing, there was an extended interchange between Judge Carter and Obama’s government attorney in which the judge tried to persuade the defense to agree to allow a deposition of Mr. Smith in order to learn more about the evidence Mr. Smith claimed to have, but the defense refused to agree to allow any evidence to be presented in any form.

    An interview of Lucas Smith was conducted on August 18, 2010 by Steve Cooper at theconservativemonster.com. In this interview, Lucas Smith describes the circumstances and the manner of his acquisition of the Kenyan birth certificate document. He also describes a new project he has underway to apprise each member of Congress individually of the existence of this document. The interview is well-worth listening to and may be found at:

    An enhanced version of a Lucas Smith video may be seen at:

    At the end of the audio file, after the interview with Lucas Smith was concluded, a caller who claims to have been present at the September 8 hearing and who talked to Lucas Smith states that he considered Lucas Smith to be a responsible and credible individual based on his impressions from those contacts.

    What strikes me about this matter in relation to Judge Carter is that this interchange regarding possible testimony from Lucas Smith, together with Judge Carter’s unequivocal statements at this hearing and the July 13 hearings respectively regarding his intention to conduct a trial on the merits of the case for “the country’s benefit” and so that “the country isn’t sitting there wondering who the Commander-in-Chief is, and who the President is”, are clear examples of Judge Carter’s apparent awareness of Justice Marshall’s admonition to the courts that the courts must provide a “remedy in the law to a violation of a vested legal right” or this country will no longer deserve the “high appellation” as a government of laws and not men.

    Yet when Judge Carter stated in his ruling that, notwithstanding a mountain of circumstantial evidence that a massive election fraud took place in the 2008 presidential election, and that a criminal conspiracy was executed in order to usurp the office of president of the United States, he finds that the fact that sixty-nine million Americans voted for this usurper takes priority over the requirements of the Constitution that the president must hold certain specific qualifications in order to serve in the office of president, and by inference, that he must demonstrate to the people that he meets those qualifications.

    When there is overwhelming evidence that massive criminal fraud has taken place by those individuals who conspired to gain the power vested in the Executive Branch by the United States Constitution, does the separation of powers doctrine continue to “limit the reach of the federal courts”?

    I would submit that if it does, then we no longer have a government of laws, and not of men.

    1. I listened to the interview with Lucas Smith. Do you know if the letters to Congress he mentioned have been sent yet?
      Also, everyone needs to listen, very interesting, and he provides contact information for anyone who would like to help him out.

      1. New posting by Dr. Orly Taitz:

        9th Circuit Court of Appeals has referred my Case: Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al for mediation for Oct. 4 at 11am. There will be only 3 attorneys at this mediation conference: Myself, Assist US attorney Roger West and Assist. U.S. attorney David DeJute. I will keep you posted regarding the outcome of the conference.

        Posted on | August 25, 2010 | No Comments

        10-55084 Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Obama, et al “Mediation Order Filed”


  4. This is to clarify the matter of the hearings held in the case Barnett et al v. Obama and my own attendance at those hearings.

    There were three hearings leading up to the dismissal ruling by Judge Carter on October 29, 2009 – July 13, 2009, September 8, 2009, and October 5, 2009. The transcript for the Sept 8 hearing can be found at

    After reviewing the transcript of the September hearing, I clearly recall attending this hearing, as well as the other two hearings. I now recall driving to the September hearing with one other person instead of with a larger group as was the case with both the July and the October hearings.

    While this third hearing is of some significance for reasons I will briefly describe below, it does not affect the information included and the points made in my Aug. 22 editorial.

    The September hearing was taken up with four main issues:
    1) a motion for recusal of another judge in connection with plaintiffs motion for approval of “letters rogatory” which would have allowed for depositions of foreign officials in the U.K. and Kenya. As things turned out, this matter had no major significance.
    2) A motion reflecting continuation of the dispute between Attorney Taitz Attorney Kreep over representation of plaintiffs Wiley and Robinson, again having little major significance in the end, but involving a rather lengthy portion of the proceedings.
    3) A request by Attorney Taitz that the court entertain testimony from witness Lucas Smith on the subject of a purported Kenyan birth certificate which he claimed was in his possession, and who had traveled some distance to attend the hearing. The defense objected strongly to such testimony without prior notice. The judge suggested a deposition of Mr. Smith while he was available, but the defense again objected, and Lucas Smith was never given an opportunity to provide his testimony.
    4) Judge Carter spent considerable time during the proceedings discussing scheduling of the various dates associated with a prospective trial, and set a tentative trial date of January 26, 2010.

    The tone of this hearing seemed positive, in my opinion. Nothing was said by Judge Carter which altered the favorable perceptions held by the plaintiffs from the July 13 hearing as to the prospects of going to trial on the merits of the case, and we now had a tentative close-in trial date as well.

    The most meaningful substantive comments made by Judge Carter during this hearing appear on page 17 of the transcript:

    “The Court: Now Counsel, I think we should resolve it (conflict between Attorney Taitz and Attorney Kreep) this way. Because of the disagreement between counsel, it means that the merit of this claim would be substantially delayed. That is not a good result for either plaintiff or the defendant. The difficulty in delay is that if President Obama fits the requirements of the Constitution, then any delay undermines his ability to act as President, because the longer the delay, the more credibility attaches to the idea with many people or some people that he is not meeting constitutional requirements. That’s not to President Obama or the country’s benefit.

    There is equal concern that this Court has concerning plaintiffs. If President Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements of the United States Constitution, then we have this significant delay because of the disagreements between counsel that put this matter off for months and perhaps years.

    And what is of great concern to this court is that however I rule…you are going to file (an appeal) immediately. Most courts would join those two lawsuits together which would delay Ms. Taitz’s lawsuit, and you would be right back in the same position six months to a year from now.

    So I am a loss to understand how anybody benefits with a simple six months to a year delay and we’re back here at that time. This is a personal dispute. You two are going to have to work it out.

    So I think what I’m going to do is force the two of you together. I don’t know if I have any legal ability to do that. You can take it to the 9th Circuit if you would like to go and further delay this matter, but I’ll give you that choice.”

    This did not sound like a judge who anticipated a dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction or on any other “mere technicality”.

    1. Taitz was conned into re serving the government by Judge Carter. She should have stuck to her guns and maintained that candidate/ president elect had already been served.IMO
      As soon as she re served the DOJ, Judge Carter did a 180.

  5. I guess “Semper Fidelis” doesn’t mean much to that Marine anymore! Sorta explains why he doesn’t honor the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution either! I’m sure his brother Marines are very proud Judge David O. Carter!


  7. David O Carter was a man of Honor until he had to show his true color , Now the entire world can see what He ( Carter ) is actually made of

  8. Did you observe in the news today (Aug 22) that David O Carter works for the Dept of Justice? Is this the same Judge Carter – and if so, is this some kind of kickback for turning away the lawsuit?

    1. Funny you saw that! Same “pay for play” that got Patrick Fitzgerald promoted to the Dept of Justice!! And you know how his prosecution of Blago worked out-an utter failure in order to protect Obama.

      That’s how this fraud works-BRIBES AND/OR THREATS!

      1. An eye-opener, Birdy. Carter has been working with Sharia courts for three years, and possibly 12, for the State Department. I wonder if he knows Arabist John Brennan, fluent in Arabic, former CIA Dep. Dir. of Counterterrorism, who protected Obama before and after becoming Obama’s official White House Deputy National Security Advisor and advisor to the president. Listen to Brennan addressing a group at Columbia (which group I don’t recall) speaking in Arabic about Al Quts (the Arab name for Jerusalem), and the term used by those who regard Jews in Israel as an occupying force. Interesting too the public’s growing realization that Obama may be a Muslim. (I suspect he is about as much a Muslim as his KGB trained cousin Odinga, the one who named his Son Fidel). Is it a stretch that the state and justice department are managing Taitz who has not been cowed by the constant harassment? She knows the stakes.

  9. An excellent and powerful summary of part of the history of our second ineligible president.

    A key, clearly ignored by Judge Carter is the clarification by founder and framer and 3rd Chief Justice Marshall that we are “a government of laws, and not of men.”

    The details of the conflict between Kreep and Taitz are new to this reader. Orly Taitz first clarified for me the essense, since verified beyond doubt, that a natural born citizen is “born on the soil of citizen parents.” the phrase used by Justice Marshall when he clarified the definition forever in the case The Venus, 12 U.S. 253. (She was the first to raise, by implication, doubts about the intent of another attorney, Berg, a lifelong Democrat official, who directed attention only toward a non-existent birth certificate.)

    One issue, never clear, which I wish Major La Rocque had addressed, was a verbal promise made to Dr. Taitz to hold discovery hearings when the defense failed to respond within the required time to the original complaint? Taitz’ web site was being savaged by Internet assassins, and it was not easy to follow, or to ask questions, which was probably the intent of the web attacks.

    The issue, which I know someone can clarify, has to do with the response by the court to a failure to respond to a legal challenge. Government attorneys had some weeks, possibly in April of 2009, to respond toTaitz’ original suit. My recollection is that Taitz had the legal right to force discovery immediately – the defense had forfit the case. Judge Carter agreed, but pleaded with Taitz, on his honor, to give the government attorneys time to get their response together, and promised, whatever happened in the first hearing, to allow discovery – to provide the prosecution and defense the legal authority to supeana documents. Why else would Taitz forgo the right to represent her military plaintiffs, Alan Keyes, and others in April? It appears that she trusted the honor of a Marine. Her plaintiffs might have a reason to question her judgement, and she will probably not make that mistake again, but since the delay was requested by Judge Carter based upon a promise of discovery, there is apparently no honor or justice for the moment. Some say a verbal agreement is a contract?

    As to Judge Carter’s motives, the mysterious attorney from Bob Bauer, possibly Pakistani, is hard to avoid. But Roger Hedgecock once clarified the morass of political intrigue which is the mandarin class of federal judges. Of course some are honest, but being untouchables, there are many stories of their major sources of income based upon doing legal favors. Their base salaries are less than a quarter of what a senior corporate attorney in a major firm makes.
    They don’t answer to the people, they are owned and removable only by the legislature.
    Even if his life has been squeaky clean, we’ve seen a political appointee, Scooter Libby, prosecuted for a charge the prosecution knew from the beginning to be false (Fitzgerald, long a Dem operative, even knew perpetraitor, Powell deputy Richard Armitage).

    Judge Carter wil spend his life certain that some know he betrayed both his honor and his former military warriors who now certainly serve under a man both ineligible to be commander in chief, and without allegiance to this nation. He also apparently betrayed the immigrant from Moldavia, who spent her youth surrounded by lives destroyed by tyranny. She is dispensible now, her character so effectively impugned by the maggots of the left, because she fights like the warrior Carter left behind. She fights knowing there is nowhere else to go, like a mother bear, trying to protect her brood while she can. Carter now has a job with The Ruling Class.

      1. According to a response I just received from Dr. Taitz, the short answer is yes. She says Judge Carter promised a trial on the merits if she would repeat service on the government defendants, since they were claiming that they did not receive proper service. Certainly a “trial on the merits” implies full discovery in preparation for trial. Dr. Taitz feels that Judge Carter did not live up to the commitment he made to her as plaintiff’s counsel.

        She says that all the relevant information on this issue is in the pleadings and in the appeal brief. I will take a look later and see if this matter can be fleshed out any more.

  10. Maybe Carter wasn’t bought off, maybe he and his family were threatened. This is a possibility also. I know he’s a war hero, etc., but he’s also older and most likely has children and a family. This is a firm possibility.

  11. From my understanding of all of this, it seems that Judge Carter was compromised in this case. He’s done a total turnaround in thought from his first statements. This is strange. Was he and his family threatened?

    You know everyone, I’m sick of these crooks who try to compromise justice and threatened others. If Judge Carter was threatened, then this needs to be investigated too. IF there is anyone honest to do an investigation. Otherwise, it’s left up to honest people in the U.S.?

    I’m just thoroughly sick of all the injustice in this land. Somewhere, somehow, something has to change for us all.

    1. When I first heard about Orly’s success and Judge Carter’s initial comments, I wrote
      an email to Oath Keepers, asking them to check with both Orly and Judge Carter and
      offer assistance for acquiring/providing protection for themselves and their families.

      I believe Oath Keepers did that, but I’m not sure how or where it wound up.
      Does anyone else have any info on Oath Keepers showing up in the neighborhood?
      They are sometimes tight-lipped about activities.

  12. Very interesting article.
    Did Atty Taitz ask the court to “Remove the putative POTUS” from office as the remedy? – Or was this “presumed” by Judge Carter?.

    1. The following paragraph appears on page 25 of the appeal brief filed on August 11 by Dr Taitz:

      “J. The court misrepresented the allegations in the pleadings.

      On page 2, line 10 of the October 29 order the court stated that the complaint pleadings talked about Mr. Obama’s citizenship status and his birth in Kenya. This is misstatement of law and (a) complete misstatement of the pleadings and oral argument. The undersigned has submitted for judicial notice “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel, specifically arguing that regardless of where Mr. Obama was born, he was never qualified for (the) presidency, as he admitted that he has British citizenship at birth based on the citizenship of his father. Later he acquired Kenyan citizenship and Indonesian citizenship, therefore he did not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, as from birth and until now he had allegiance to other Nations… Additionally the court stated that the Plaintiffs were seeking to remove Obama from office by court order. That was not the case. The Plaintiffs were looking for discovery declaratory relief to ascertain whether fraud was committed. Plaintiffs were looking for (a) judicial finding, for determination in regard to the eligibility. They were not seeking to remove Obama out of office by a court order, however if the judicial determination were to be achieved, that in itself would and should trigger further actions by Congress.”


    Simple answer: Either money or threats?!!?!

  14. Although this article is mostly accurate and descriptive and to be commended, it does have one basic serious error. I too was at the hearing he describes as having occured on July 13, 2009 but he in fact has the dates mixed up. The hearing he is describing which was very favorable to the plaintiffs was not the first, but the second, and occured on September 9, 2009. The hearing in which he reversed himself and tilted toward the defense was the October 5th hearing, which was the third.

    1. If I made an error I will certainly correct it. The transcript of the July 13 hearing is here:

      The quotes from Judge Carter listed in my editorial are in this transcript as described.

      In my affidavit I stated that I had attended the first hearing on September 9 (based on information provided to me by a fellow attendee) but I only recall attending two hearings, and after reading the transcripts of the July 13 and October 5 hearings, I am sure those were the two hearing I attended.

      I cannot rule out the possibility that I attended a third hearing on September 9, but that is not my recollection.

      Everything I wrote in this editorial is consistent with the official transcripts of the hearings, and with the ruling by Judge Carter.

      However, there is apparently an error in my affidavit, for which I stand corrected. This occurred as a result of a very short time available to produce an affidavit before Dr. Taitz’s filling deadline for the appeal.

      I do not believe that this matter of hearing dates in any way affects the points I was making in my editorial.


  15. Clearly Carter was “bought off” of the case in opposition to his claims early in the proceedings that he (the court) wished to find out if “the President” REALLY WAS “the President”. He clearly changed his tune with the odd choice of the politically connected new clerk.

    But then again the Plaintiffs let the burden of proof to be laid upon them rather that having it placed upon Obama. That is one of the key points in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al action which will soon go before for the Supreme Court for certiorari. In it, Obama was named as a private person after the Congressionally incorrect acceptance of the Electoral College results but before he was sworn in as Prseident. That (prior to being President) makes him a private citizen (because of that there is no “political question”/”Presidential removal” BS as Carter used) at that point and being sued as such, the burden of proof is upon Obama to demonstrate his eligibility to hold the office he now occupies.

    Carter is not only a liar but a traitor as well and he showed himself clearly to be so, decorated Marine or not.

    If remanded by SCOTUS that means discovery must take place in Federal Court – if not remanded … there goes the United States Constitution AND our Constitutional Republic.

    In view of all of that I’d urge everyone to donate any sum possible to http://www.protectourliberty.org to help pay for advertising and direct court expenses.

    1. Dr. Taitz insists that the Keyes/Barnett case was also filed before Obama became a sitting president (page 27 of appeal brief):

      “K. The court erred in fact by stating that the plaintiff’s counsel waited to bring this action until after Obama’s assumption of office.

      As a matter of fact, …the order states that Obama was re-sworn on January 21, while Taitz filed the pleading in the morning of January 20… As the court itself pointed out, and as it was seen by millions of Americans on national TV, Obama completely misspoke his oath of office and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts had to come to the White House on January 21st to give Obama a new oath, so he officially took office on January 21, while Taitz filed (the) current action a day earlier on January 20th. Therefore, there was standing and (the) current action should proceed to trial.”

      1. Your posts are accurate. One thing that really bothered me was that there was initially grounds for a default judgement but Carter actually wanted the trial to present evidence to a jury such that it would become public knowlege. When the default was traded for the trial there ought to have been some new evidence Carter would have in order for him to justify his dismissal. Carter, it appears, has not only dismissed a case but violated the trust we all must have in the court that it does what it says. In other words, Carter is a cheat, liar and fraud all rolled into one. So much for his court having any legitimacy at all.

      2. David
        Something interesting re: Obama’s misspoke his oath of office.
        Check out you tube “Reverse speech Obama’s oath of office.” Interesting.