Carter shows his ethics: hires lawyer from Obama firm, as clerk Oct. 1st

thepostnemail ^ | 10/17/09 | John Charlton

[blueyon]

In a stunning blow to the impartiality of the American Judicial system, Federal Judge David O. Carter, who is hearing the case Barnett vs. Obama, in the Central District, Southern Division Court at Santa Ana, California, has just hired a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. And that, just days before the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, in which his demeanor radically changed, according to Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Seattle, Washington. It is not clear if he has broken his relations with the firm.

C, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the Whitehouse Communication’s Director.

[Publius Valerius]

You think the clerk is making the decision for the Judge in the Motion to Dismiss?

In a lot of courts, probably--or at least the clerk would take first crack at drafting the opinion. The judge has to sign off on it, obviously, but in most courts, it's pretty rare that judges will write their own opinions. Clerks will draft, judge will sign off.

That said, this stuff is ridiculous. Tinfoil hat is pretty accurate.

[Drew68]

So a Marine and Federal Judge who has had the case for months and has conducted at least three hearings on the matter is going to be improperly influenced by a newly hired law clerk?

To rational people? No. To birthers? Well, this is actually one of their less crazier explanations.

[Freedom2specul8]

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/obamas-missouri-goon-squad-plays-the-victim/

TRUTH SQUAD: DEMS PLAY VICTIMS AGAIN!! WHINERS

On Friday, I pointed you to Missouri-based blogger Jim Hoft’s overview of how “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.”

Over the weekend, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt blasted the Obama campaign’s abusive use of Missouri law enforcement.

Jim has a follow-up this morning on one of the Missouri Obama Goons who is now playing the victim card in the wake of the backlash.

Licking her wounds.

They thought they could get away with it.

[Drew68]

I imagine over on KOS they consider this stuff tinfoil

To be fair, they consider this stuff comedy. And they don't call the people pushing this stuff "birthers." They call them "Freepers."

[rxsid]

"They call them "Freepers."

(if true), a clear example of their ignorance.

[BP2]

> You think the clerk is making the decision
> for the Judge in the Motion to Dismiss?

Yeah, sure. The Clerk is really running the show, sitting at the bench, wearing a Judge Carter latex facemask while the REAL judge is off playing golf all week. < /sarc>

Come on ... stop playing the court jester.

It’s called INFLUENCE and INSIDER INFORMATION for a reason. And it can be quite subtle.

Notwithstanding prior Motions to Dismiss, if you took the time to read the court reporter minutes from the Oct 5 hearing, it’s obvious the Judge Carter seems to be teetering on Standing, Jurisdiction and other findings — moreso from Kreep’s arguments than from Orly’s.

And yes, a Law Clerk CAN sway the judge's review of the attorneys' papers one way or the other, especially when finding or "overlooking" important and critical prior rulings in the 9th Circuit.

Now run along little troll, before I have to taunt you a second time.

[Freedom2specul8]

Is that helmet made out of tin? LOL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2360195/posts

A New Day at Justice.gov [Announcing Obama’s new DOJ Blog Squad]
doj,gov ^ | October 1, 2009 | By Tracy Russo, DOJ Blog Squad Czarina

Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:24:19 PM by Jim Robinson

Welcome to the new Justice.gov. If you’re a regular visitor to our site, you’ll notice some changes today. If you are joining us for the first time, welcome.

The Department of Justice launches Justice.gov today in an effort to increase openness and transparency in government. Utilizing a variety of online tools, we will be able to share news and information, not just on our own web site, but through popular social networks Twitter, YouTube and MySpace and Facebook. The Justice presence on these social networks will allow Americans to interact with the Department in entirely new ways.

The new Justice.gov has incorporated more multimedia than ever before. You’ll find a photo gallery and video library that will be regularly updated with new content from across the Department of Justice. And of course, The Justice Blog will be a hub of information for the Department.

We are all excited by these new opportunities. Today’s launch is just the first step towards creating the most open, accessible and transparent Justice Department possible. We welcome your feedback about the new site and your ideas for the future.

POSTED IN: Office of Public Affairs

[BP2]

> Is that helmet made out of tin? LOL

No more like hardened steel,
similar to that of prison bars ;)

[kukaniloko]

Of course he’s now concerned about those issues - they were brought up in the Motion to Dismiss - a document he had not read prior to the previous hearings. But I know, the more rational explanation is that some Products Liability guy is now subtlely influencing him - it couldn’t be the actual issues and the quality of counsel on each side.

So long as we’re playing Kevin Bacon games, I wonder if the Judge will be subtlelye influenced by this article written by some guy that attended the same law school as Obama: Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 881 (1983).

[Freedom2specul8]

Guess who’s married to Obama media ‘controller’

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2367069/posts?page=9

Attacking Fox News and defending President Barack Obama is a family affair for Anita Dunn, the White House communications director who has blasted Fox as an arm of the Republican Party and talked about “controlling” the news media.

She’s married to Robert Bauer, the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the White House to defend President Obama in court cases challenging his “natural born” citizenship status in the United States and thus, his eligibility under the U.S.

[BP2]

So long as we’re playing Kevin Bacon games, I wonder if the Judge will be subtlelye influenced by this article written by some guy that attended the same law school as Obama: Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 881 (1983).

I'm actually a Kiefer Sutherland fan myself – he’s far better at drama. And I sure like it when he kicks the dog crap out of some corrupt Leftist politician on 24. But I digress …

The concept of "Standing" is relatively modern.

The majority of legal scholars who have studied the issue have concluded that the Framers of the Constitution never intended that Standing — a term absent from the Constitution —  to serve as an independent test for identifying who can properly bring a legal claim in federal court.

Instead, the Framers believed that Congress should have broad power to enact legislation granting citizens the right to sue.

While Justice Scalia may be viewed as succeeding in transforming the Court's “Standing” jurisprudence, it remains uncertain whether a majority of the High Court fully embraces his restrictive theory of "citizen standing".

You’d be foolish to think that prior Motions to Dismiss other Eligibility cases DEFINE Scalia’s and the SCOTUS’ stance on this "citizen standing" and Separations of Powers. It’s really less about Article III, Section 2 – and more about Politics.

Why do I say this? Do you remember Gore v Bush??  Well … LOL, of course you do ;)   

I think it’s pretty clear that the SCOTUS really does not want to get involved in the middle a political issue again … BUT  … it WOULD, if there was NO OTHER WAY to resolve the controversy.

Judge Carter seems to agree, even though Obama’s Justice Department espouses that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide such heady issues.

REALLY?!  Does Congress seem even remotely-CAPABLE or UNBIASED enough to handle such a “controversy”?!! Of course not! That’s why Article III, Section 2 DOES exist. The SCOTUS has clearly established a standing requirement and has grounded this requirement in the Constitution, which grants the judiciary the power to hear "cases" and "controversies."

So yeah – resolve this by redefining the Standing issue – and throw it in front of Justices who serve for LIFE, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The SCOTUS is about the only entity deemed by most to be neutral enough to tackle such a controversial issue. BUT again – before the SCOTUS takes it on, the case has to come up through the court system or else the SCOTUS would seem to be too eager or biased in taking on the issue. This would ALSO revise aspects of Marbury v. Madison (1803) to some extent.

In regards to Standing, particularly "citizen standing,” I contend that Justice Sotormayor may agree with the concept that the Individual is more important than the collective – as would other Justices –  especially if the argument is framed in a different light. Justice Ginsburg has said, "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," evoking the Declaration of Independence. Sotormayor hinted that mindset, too, last month on her first day on the High Court.

Is the USA a Corporation? There are valid arguments that it is – which BTW, could also be exploited to pound the Quo Warranto concept into the dirt on this case. But honestly, I prefer the questions that Orly inferred: How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him? Does Quo Warranto apply if a president is indeed illegitimate in the first place? Despite what some view as being irrefutable favoring the POTUS via Quo Warranto, Judge Carter takes pause at these questions – as rightly he should.


BUT, back to the subject of Standing …

Who has more power in the Constitution – a Corporation or the Individual? Reference the Constitution and you’ll find the Bill of Rights is VASTLY in favor of the INDIVIDUAL, not a Corporation or the “collective”. That concept wasn’t really FIRST challenged until 1886.

I think that Sotormayor and the other Justices might view Individual rights, as well as the rights of the taxpayer, beyond current High Court and lower court interpretations of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) seem to indicate. In Lujan, it was ruled that plaintiffs must “have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ in the form of the ‘invasion of a legally protected interest,’ that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ”

If you agree with that stance, you’re a Globalist and beyond help. If you don’t – you’re a Conservative – whether you wish to be labeled as such or not!

Similarly Judge Carter hints that concept is balderdash, when on Oct 5th he inferred (my words here):

WHO protects the rights of a Third Party (regardless of size — Perot or Keyes), in a Two-Party Legislature, and a One-Party Executive Branch?

Further, Gary Kreep argued that Congress lacks the political neutrality to make such a decision. Judge Carter seemed to concur. Again, this CHALLENGES the commonly-held view of what Scalia espouses, but again … the framing of an argument in front of a Justice can change the outcome of case law.

To that end … does Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923) and Marbury v. Madison (1803) deserve some tweaking?   Yeah, I think they do!

If you gave a damn about your own personal rights and freedoms, so would you. Just look at the more-draconian aspects of The Patriot Act to get a feel of what I’m talking about.



BTW, kukaniloko – your Politijab talking point paper probably doesn't help you out on any of these concepts, does it?! LOL

[MestaMachine]

Yo! Yo! Yo! y'all. Jim Quinn, (you know him, Jim?) of Quinn and Rose in the Morning, at http://www.warroom.com, a conservative talk show host from the Pittsburgh area, national now, and on XM radio across the country, has JUST done a whole segment of his show on the birth cerificate issue. They don't come more conservative than Quinn and the BC ain't a joke anymore. Up 'til now, he has mentioned it a few times, but always with skepticism. But not today.

He read the full article, How Crazy are those “Birthers?” from Canada Free Press, and he has never spent this much time on something he isn't serious about,

Thanks, Quinn. We've gone mainstream. Will anyone else follow?

[MestaMachine]

From the article:
“So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled “birthers” for questioning the “Natural Born Citizen” status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office.”

[stockpirate]

Carved in stone above an entrance to the DOJ in DC:

“Where Justice Ends Tyranny Begins”

And

“Repression Breeds Violence”

[Freedom2specul8]

Here let me find my factcheck book, because I’m not sure if that’s what they really meant. (/SaR)

[Freedom2specul8]

I guess I really need to start listening to the radio again.. When my kids were little they use to say, “mom, you have these great speakers, but they’re for MUSIC”. LoL my shows were on when I took them to and from school.

-—sorry kids, I’m sure ya learned something. :)

[stockpirate]

LOL.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Isn't the "London School of Economics and Political Science." somewhat Marxists in outlook?

The London School of Economics and Political Science is a leading social science institution for teaching and research.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Isn't the "London School of Economics and Political Science." somewhat Marxists in outlook?

The London School of Economics and Political Science is a leading social science institution for teaching and research.

[LorenC]

The Slovakian Law School is very likely a goof by Findlaw, since "Comenius" is close to "Columbia" alphabetically.

They are likely directly adjacent. In an alphabetical listing of U.S. law schools, the next school after Columbia is Cornell (or, depending on how you organize the list, the University of Connecticut).

I guess to some people, the notion of an Indian Dartmouth graduate going to a Slovakian law school makes more sense than somebody at Westlaw making a data entry error.