15
Dec
09

Judge Carter Dismisses Obama Trial

Sorry folks. I didn’t see that Carter dismissed the case shortly thereafter. This is in response to my other post Obama Trial on 26 January 2010.

IV. DISPOSITION [p.29-30]
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 & 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.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009

Dismissal Papers

Why the change of mind after already stating there would be a trial, Carter?

Advertisements

27 Responses to “Judge Carter Dismisses Obama Trial”


  1. 1 Anthony J. Verderese
    19 December 2009 at 21:11

    Dear Judge Carter:

    When I was seven years old, I found out that there wasn’t a real Santa Claus! I was crushed; and I never really felt the same way about Christmas since. The same thing happen when you dismissed the Obama trial on as far as I’m concerned a technicality. Nobody really knows who this guy is. None of his records have ever been divulged (including a long form birth certificate). Where have all the real political heroes gone? I believe the political pressure was just too great, and you let the exigencies of the practical world dissuade you from “Doing the right thing”.

    AJV

  2. 2 Stephen Olf Wikblom
    9 January 2010 at 01:57

    I have read the above reason for dismissal, but I am unsure what that has to do with the initial question of qualification to run? If the grounds are substantial to dispute qualification, then surely a trial or pre trial should be held for reasons of pulic interest.

    However, that said, His Honour did allude to the prospect of other lawful means to seek such diqualification if particular Contitutional transgretions had occured.

    What the requisites are for such proceedure I do not know as I am from Australia.

    I wish that I had an understanding of your legal system to find what body apart from the court would cover these situations of qualification to stand for Office of President and with such powers of inquiry and enforcement.
    This case is interesting, but there are few details or commentary on the net that address such points I wish to find out about.

    In our land we have Tribunals with the Jurasdiction limited to what the appropriate Act says. Any questions of Constitution and interpretation of such procedure can generally only be made by our higher Courts and then it is sent back to the Tribunal, once such questions or proceedure is ruled on by those higher Courts.

    A Tribunal in Australia has no jurasdiction to make rulings on Constitutional interpretations regarding qualification to stand for office in Parliament. They rule generally on the black letter of the law and are technically an extension of the Parliament itself.
    The Parliament has made Tribunals for such disputes in fairness to transparency and usually a judge, justice or other Judicial officer will preside.

    It would be prudent therefore, that I ask anyone who subscribes to this forum to write what proceedures or processes can be used to keep this matter going so that the public of America (and the world) can be confident that Barack Obama is who he says he is.

  3. 3 aonoma
    13 January 2010 at 10:54

    The headline should use TRIAL, not TRAIL.

  4. 17 January 2010 at 08:02

    Oops. I feel silly. Corrected. Thank you.

  5. 5 Alexander
    19 January 2010 at 20:40

    So basically he is saying it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to hold that trial unless I misunderstood it.
    So what court is going to do it then? That sucks.

  6. 19 January 2010 at 20:52

    I could be wrong, but it seems that the courts are generally deciding it this way – the people voted him in there, therefore he is the President until Congress calls for him to be removed via impeachment or investigation.

  7. 7 Wes
    21 January 2010 at 14:07

    Could Obama be a Corporate Citizen???

  8. 22 January 2010 at 12:19

    @Wes: There are (conspiracy) theories about America being a corporation but I’ve never heard of anyone, any human being, trying to be a corporate citizen. But, who knows… if they said it was true, I wouldn’t even be surprised.

  9. 9 Starman
    23 January 2010 at 15:53

    This whole issue of dismissal is ridiculous and further proves how useless our judicial system really is. The only truly safe person in this country is the criminal. As for what Konfusing Kancer stated in an earlier comment, “I am not so sure he (Obama) has actually committed a crime”. How stupid is that. I still believe it is a crime to knowing lie or to conceal a disqualifing fact by not proving his eligibility to become president. So I guess you are not a bank robber if you simply don’t admit to it. How utterly stupid is that. There is but one simple solution to this simple question……..Show the birth certificate. Conversely, there is also only “ONE” reason to not show it……..DUH! Come on Congress, stand up and be counted……..Who should we elect next time, some arab?

  10. 24 January 2010 at 01:56

    @Starman:
    Hi and welcome to my blog. A bit testy for your first post, though.

    As for what Konfusing Kancer stated in an earlier comment, “I am not so sure he (Obama) has actually committed a crime”. How stupid is that. I still believe it is a crime to knowing lie or to conceal a disqualifing fact by not proving his eligibility to become president. So I guess you are not a bank robber if you simply don’t admit to it. How utterly stupid is that.

    If he has committed a crime for showing his COLB over his long-form, then show me the law. For a law to be broken there has to be a law written. I know of no law that mandates that a person show that they are eligible for Presidency, do you? I know there are requirements, but there are no laws showing that he has to provide Form XYZ. If you know of the law, please show it to me. Otherwise, please redact your statement about me being stupid.

    Is it not cool that he may be concealing evidence? Sure. It is stupid and wrong. However, if you haven’t noticed, people are innocent until proven guilty. In reality, he doesn’t have to lawfully show anyone anything to be President. So because we lawfully voted him in, we have to lawfully remove him… and the Constitution provides to us how a President is to be removed.

    There is but one simple solution to this simple question……..Show the birth certificate. Conversely, there is also only “ONE” reason to not show it……..DUH! Come on Congress, stand up and be counted……..Who should we elect next time, some arab?

    That is part of the issue here – he has shown the birth certificate, the COLB. But that tells us nothing as there are lawful ways of being a citizen but not a “natural-born” citizen as the Constitution requires. The long-form would clear this all up. But again, he doesn’t have to show anyone that form. So for now, we are stuck with what we have and we will have to judge his eligibility based on that. I truly believe that the only way that we are ever going to see the LFBC is if Congress demands it in an impeachment investigation/hearing.

  11. 11 Static_White_Dream
    25 January 2010 at 21:41

    Although there are no laws, it still doesn’t make sense to me that Obama has yet to show all of his “natural-citizen” documentation. IF he has nothing to hide, and is in fact a natural born citizen, it would necessitate him showing said documentation so that all these arguments would be put down. But in him not doing so goes to show that he does have something to hide. It should not be that big of a deal for him to end all this, yet he continues to not do so. But, since there is no law dictating he must do this, I can understand, to that end, why he does not. If he has nothing to hide, show the documentation. If he HAS something to hide, then he should continue on the path he is on right now. Because in the end, nothing will probably come of it.

  12. 26 January 2010 at 09:25

    @Static: Pretty much. He does have the power to end it all. My guess is that he is abiding by the old idea of… “All publicity is good publicity.”

  13. 13 Stephanie C
    27 January 2010 at 08:35

    Come on people – Our American Constitution requires our president to be a natural born citizen. With that said, one must provide proof of eligibility with no margin of discretion. this is a black and white issue. If Obama cannot prove his required eligibility without a doubt, we/the American people should be able to dismiss him from office. If we need Congress to do this, then get on board Congress!

  14. 14 WILLIAM BORONI
    28 January 2010 at 09:51

    WHAT CAN I DO? CAN I AS A CITIZEN START MY OWN LAWSUIT? I CAN AFORDID IT, BUT I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
    BILL B

  15. 15 Del A
    28 January 2010 at 22:55

    If there is no law or no statue making the President show he is indeed eligible to run for the highest office in the world, then why cant Osama Bin Laden run? HJe doesn’t have anything to prove to keep him out of office. I am sure a lot more people know this name than knew OBama’s name when he ran, and I bet you that Osama has more exdperience than Obama. Let’s get real. You have to be a natural born citizen to be President. It is written in the Constitution. Who checks that and how much has he been paid?? Does Judge Carter know who checks this. Who will check Jose Cuervo’s identification next year? If he runs, with all the hispanics voting for him, he is a shoe-in. Nobody in the Judcial system will check to see if he was born in Mexico or Peru. Who cares anyway?? Come On!!!!!

  16. 16 Nick Hollister
    31 January 2010 at 16:55

    The banks got to Carter just as they have gotten into politics. We don’t elect anyone anymore; the banks put them into office.

  17. 17 Secure Party
    3 February 2010 at 19:00

    Only one of you have it correct. First off, the US is a foriegn corporating, if you understand the UCC then the concept of corporations take hold. When you were born and your feet were stamped on the Birth Cert., you became an US citizen as well as property of the US. (You are a corporation). This is why you can be dragged into court, jail, taxed till you are broke, (you are a slave) end of story.
    Obama wasn’t elected, he was placed as president by the elite. What other administration has done what this group has done and get away with it? The US citizens are being tested to see if America is ready for the slaughter. And since all the scheems have occured without major protest, America continues to be prepared for the slaughter.
    So stay in your comfort zone and wait for someone else to standup and hit the streets in protest and you will wake tomorrow and have nothing but gov. wiating to take all from you.

    Don’t talk abouy your constitutional rights unless you have sat down and read it.
    Don’t talk about the laws unless you have sat down and read them.
    Don’t talk about conspiracy theories unless you have read the UCC, which regulates how the commercial world operates.
    Obama’s case was dismissed because the laws don’t mean anything to the elites or the current administration. If any of you knew what was really going on, maybe it would be enough to motivate a rebelion. Your birth rights were signed away a long time ago, now you are simply a slave who’s voice is not heard by your master.
    Do a search for GOOOH. This may do some good if they get in.

  18. 12 February 2010 at 04:07

    It seems to me if there is no machinery in place to enforce a person to produce a birth certificate for proof birth when questioned, nor any penalty for non compliance of such, then it does seem that America has been asleep for many years.

    If an important Constitutional prerequisite for election is the qualification of native birth, then adequate (enacted)legislation should have been in place years ago stipulate procedure to enforce and protect such Constitutional provision.

    It seems that this present matter cannot be resolved until the next election and even then, unless A law is enacted to enforce the intent of the Constitutional Fathers, this matter may not be resolved.

  19. 19 ROUGH JUSTICE
    12 February 2010 at 07:34

    I hope some of the folks who have written in are still reading the Replies, because I would like to bring up a point that I think might address one of the major questions that was posted earlier. I apologize for being a little late, but I just found this website. This birth certificate issue drives me into homicidal maniac mode if I think about it too much. I continue to wonder why nobody who can make this a national issue isn’t doing so. Fox News – pass. Judicial Watch – pass. Only the inimitable Orly Taitz keeps pounding away at this. But that is all that gets done – pounding away.

    I can understand Judge Carter’s interpretation of the Constitution, so I’m going to reject out of hand all the conspiracy theories that have been presented in the Replies. Unfortunately, it is only congress who can act on this, and they obviously aren’t going to. Where I personally think the judge’s argument is flawed, is in his thinking that he is being asked to remove a sitting president. Not true – he is being asked to determine whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen who has the qualifications to be president. If the trial or investigation shows that Obama isn’t qualified, then that will put the onus on congress to either act or ignore. It appears that Ms. Taitz – for all of her courage – needs to be able to step aside, because of her track record of disruption and disrespect, assured that somebody else will take up the battle. However, with nobody else stepping forward, she is left to carry on alone – for better or for worse.

    But some writers said essentially, if nobody asks for the proof, the candidate isn’t required to produce it prior to being elected. So Obama slipped through using his silver tongue, his race, and his thugs to be sure he was never asked. HOWEVER, there is a person responsible for determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Since it appears nothing can be done after he was elected, except by congress – who won’t – why not go after the person who signed off on the candidate’s eligibility ? Of course, that person would be Mz. Pelosi – at that time the chair of the DNC. The document exists on which she has ‘signed off’ on the eligibility of candidate Obama to be president. I propose someone needs to haul her into court – perhaps the gentleman who offered to do so, if he knew where to begin – and get her to divulge the basis for her ‘guaranteeing’ his eligibility. Worst case: she will say she made a mistake and forgot to ask for proof. Fine, Mz. Pelosi, since ignorance of the law is no excuse; nor is “I just made a mistake, officer.” what is the civil penalty for misrepresentation on a Federal document of this much importance ? We aren’t talking about an income tax violation here; so I hope the penalty includes jail time, as money means nothing to Mz. Pelosi (in fact she would probably pay any fine out of a House budget item, and we would end up paying the fine).

    There’s my pitch, folks. I hope I have added something useful to the debate. I don’t personally have any way to enter the fray other than to write letters. So here it is.

    Thanks for reading.

  20. 20 Francis J Reichert Sr.
    12 February 2010 at 11:09

    If Obama needs to prove his eligiblity at an impeachment investigation/hearing then lets have one and find out the truth.

  21. 21 Marionette Hicks
    16 May 2010 at 14:08

    This is clearly (no pun intended) a white wash.
    From what I read this was not a case where the plaintiffs were seeking a ruling on a constitutional matter. Therefore, the court has no justification to use the constitutional premise to dismiss. This is a case that warrants a ruling on fraud, and a conspiracy to commit fraud. Which is a matter to be decided by the courts. This judge must be removed from the bench as a party to that conspiracy.
    There is clear irrefutable evidence that the document presented as evidence is in fact an altered document. In so being an altered document it is nullified as prima facie evidence in this case. Which is clearly stated on the document itself. The rules of evidence required to meet grounds for a conspiracy to commit fraud have now been meet. The court has never been requested to rule on the constitutional matter at hand, for those guidelines are clearly stated in the Constitution itself. The court has @ should be requested to rule on the matter of fraud, as well as; the matter of conspiracy. To file under the “Misprision of Felony Statute” requires a judge to order that to be investigated or ruled upon. Misprision of Felony strips that judge of all protections of immunity if that judge fails to do so, and can then be held legally accountable under criminal and civil law.
    The irrefutable evidence will most likely be revealed in the Court Martial now pending. For that reason it cannot be revealed here, but there is no question that it has now been discovered.

  22. 22 Marionette Hicks
    16 May 2010 at 14:36

    I just caught your excellent note to Republicans.
    Hopefully one day both parties will get the clue that we are Patriots by way of being Constitutionalists. I am still mystified by Americans who appear afraid of the Constitution and Bill of Rights upon which our Nation was built?

  23. 23 Marionette Hicks
    16 May 2010 at 20:10

    WILLIAM BORONI

    THERE IS IN FACT A LAW THAT DOES ALLOW ANY CITIZEN TO SUE THE COURT FOR AN INVESTIGATION, OR RULING IN REGARDS TO ANY ELECTED OR APPOINTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO MET THEIR PUBLIC DUTY.
    THE LAW WAS ACTUALLY CREATED TO STRIP CORRUPT JUDGES OF THEIR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.
    IT WAS FIRST INSTITUTED, BELIEVE IT OR NOT; BECAUSE CORRUPT JUDGES WERE ISSUING RESTRAINING ORDERS ON WHISTLEBLOWERS BARRING THEM FROM ENTERING THE COURT HOUSE.

    UNFORTUNATELY, IT HAS INSTEAD BEEN USED BY PROSECUTORS TO IMPRISION THOUSANDS, IF NOT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS, JUST FOR BEING PRESENT DURING A ONE SIDED PHONE CALL INVOLVING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

    WHILE ON THE OTHERHAND KEEPING IT SECRET WHAT THE LAW AFFORDS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO USE IT FOR. IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL LEGAL TOOL AVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. 18 U.S.C. § 4 MISPRISION OF FELONY. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE YOU WOULD BE BETTER TO WAIT TILL THE 2012 ELECTION TO PERSUE THAT ROUTE PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. YOU CAN REST ASSURED IF WE ARE NOT UNDER MARTIAL LAW BY THEN, THERE WILL BE THOUSANDS OF THESE BEING FILED ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IF THE STATES FAIL TO ACT ON THIS MATTER.

  24. 24 Billy
    23 May 2010 at 01:20

    no law stating that he must show eligibility? retarded, you don’t know law too well do you? there are implied laws that stand just as if they were written in black and white. The implied law here being to show eligibility; it’s implied because the law states in black and white the candidate running “must be a natural born citizen”, this mandates (yup MANDATES) that eligibility must be shown BEFORE being ALLOWED to run. Our founding fathers were not stupid, and they did not intend to spend 150 years to write every nook and crannie of common sense to be followed on the constitution. They clearly state that if the constitution does not give the government the rights to do something, then they do not have the right to do it. It does not lay out every last thing the government CANT do, but says this is what it CAN do, anything else it can not. Your argument that there is no law requiring him to show eligibility is flawed, and would be the same thing as saying “the government can do “X” because the constitution doesnt say they cant do “X”. Someone needs to go study the constitution some more…then again, i think 99% of americans need to do that. It’s depressing that people born and raised and living in other countries know what our constitution says more than the people that constitution is supposed to be protecting. The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter what the law says, if your in power, and appoint all your friends to power, you can do what you want because you control the police and the military who are the only force that could stop you because if the people attempt to, you can have them arrested/imprisoned/murdered, and since you control the media as well and can dictate what airs and does not air, there is nothing anyone can do about it. good luck, it will never happen. they would assassinate the president that did not follow their plan, so if you remove obama, they will replace him with “obama #2”

  25. 25 Billy
    23 May 2010 at 01:21

    all laws are just words on paper without manpower to actually abide by what it says and do accordingly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: