Judge David O. Carter betrays the Nation!
The Post & Email published
RULES THAT MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD GIVES NO ONE STANDING!
by John Charlton
(Oct. 29, 2009) — In a ruling that has stunned none but those who love this Nation, Judge David O. Carter has granted the Motion to Dismiss presented by the Department of Justice, in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..
The case involved the massive election fraud which occurred in 2008 General Election, when Barack Hussein Obama, though not an eligible candidate, was admitted to the ballot in California, and thus harmed and disadvantaged candidates running on third-party tickets, such as Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson.
The ridiculous ruling was characterized by Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs as something “written by the Defense,” according to the World Net Daily report.
The Post & Email will highlight the most vicious and erroneous statements in the ruling.
CARTER SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE A VICIOUS BAITER OF PATRIOTS
What Judge Carter did was not only deny justice, he viciously insulted and baited patriotic Military personnel everywhere, by his outrageous statement regarding the military plaintiff, Jason Freese in the case:
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Just prior to this outrageous insult, the Carter shows himself to be a true supporter of dictatorship over law, when he claims that U.S. Military must serve even if their chief commander has no lawful authority to command them:
Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
He then ridiculously claims that those who participate in the reception of funds taken unlawfully from the national treasury are not capable of being found guilty of crime, so long as they claim a reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of the theft. For a Judge famed for his opposition to Mexican Mafia, he seems to have entire support for the Chicago Mob. Isn’t that a racist attitude, from the liberal point of view?
Carter’s laughable ruling also claims that you have a duty to pay taxes to the IRS, but you have no rights to ask whether the President who signs the spending bills for those taxes is legitimate: or in other words, you are a feudal serf, and must pay no matter how illegitimate or corrupt the Federal Government becomes, because, in the Judge’s words, the Supreme Court says so!
Then, while Carter begrudgingly admits that third-party candidate suffered injury by being opposed by a potential ineligible candidate, he finds that his court cannot remedy the crime, and therefore he will not take action on the complaint! His argument ignores completely the question of eligibility of office, and presumes the fact that Obama is eligible, contrary to the fact of the case! He even implies that Congress can change the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is, by its choice of a presidential candidate in Joint Session!
On quo warrento, Carter makes the bold face lie of claiming the D.C. code gives exclusive jurisdiction over quo warrento proceedings regarding the President to the D.C. courts!
Carter closes by personally attacking Dr. Orly Taitz
Finally, if there is anyone who thought that Judge Carter was impartial, his closing remarks, in which he devotes a very long paragraph insulting Dr. Orly Taitz should be read in full:
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.
Imagine that! Taitz’s supporters are “followers” and “prejudiced”! My my, what bigots we patriots are!
Judge Carter continues his diatribe thus:
While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel (sic) Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court
Any objective listener will remember, however, that it was Attorney Kreep who often criticized Taitz’s arguments in court, and not the other way around.
The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service.
While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.
Imagine that! When Obama and his lawyers pretended not to receive service, it is Taitz who is at fault!
Carter descends further into the house of the mad, when he writes:
Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
Then Judge Carter gives a tantrum, because citizens wrote him letters encouraging him to be a patriot — clearly an offense that this usurper supporter will not pardon!
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
Then Judge Carter defames Attorney Taitz:
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
If Carter — he obviously does not deserve the title of “Judge” — showed his ethics by hiring Siddhart Velarmoor as law clerk, it is clear tha he has shown himself a traitor to the Nation, by his ruling in Barnett vs. Obama.
Finally, Carter closes with the most exquisite piece of pharisaical self-defense in the history of the American judiciary:
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.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.