Orly Transcript from July 13 hearing

Transcript from July 13 hearing, please read extremely important. Posted on | October 6, 2009 | No Comments

I am publishing this transcript of the July 13 hearing so that the public can see the truth. What I’ve noticed it that Obama supporters are publishing some COMPLETE GARBAGE calling it unofficial transcripts. In reality they are distorting each and every word I am saying and trying to show me in a negative light. Somebody by name “Waveydavey” has written such garbage and distortions and Phil from “Right side of Life” posted it. When the transcript of the October 5 hearing is ready, I will post it. In reality I carried most of the hearing on my shoulders. Kreep showed up an hour late and was not prepared. He did not have any precedents, he did not provide a substantial argument. I have provided numerous points and precedents in the argument and counted any and all ridiculous assertions by the US attorneys claiming that no one citizen of this country has standing to bring challenge to this massive fraud and treason perpetrated upon the citizens of this nation by the usurper and his accomplishes (as you understand US attorneys didn’t use this very language and definitions). the public was applauding me repeatedly. Kreep also lied to the judge, where he stated that I have written on my blog that people should sue Kreep. I never written that- the man is a pathological liar- it is appalling what he and Wiley Drake are doing. Drake is telling the public, media and donors that I was thrown of the legal team, so that all the donations go to Kreep. Somebody, also, told the judge that I have written on my blog to people to call the judge. It never happened. I tried to correct the record but the judge would not let me speak further. What concerns me more then anything else, is that Judge Carter sounded completely different from what he was in prior hearings on July 13 and September 8.

On July 13 I was entitled to get a Default judgment against Obama and postdefaultdiscovery, as I have properly sued Obama as an individual fora fraud that he committed as an individual before the election. I demanded from Judge Carter default or, if he is refusing to give me the default, I demanded a leave of court to get an interlocutory appeal. US attorney showed up at the hearing as a party of interest, representing USA and demanded to be served with the pleadings. He was stating that Obama was supposed to be served through the US attorneys office. I countered by stating that the service through US attorneys office is done, and defense by US attorneys at the expense of the tax payers is allowed only when a person is sued as a governmental official for what he did as an official. Obama defrauded the whole Nation, before becoming the president, by claiming to be eligible, and “we the people” should not pay for his defense, I served him properly and I am supposed toget a default judgment against him and a post judgment discovery. Judge Carter refused to give me the default. He twisted my arm time and again and pressured me to serve Obama yet again through the US attorneys office. At three different occasions at 10:40, 11:01 and 11:07 of the hearing judge Carter has assured me that if this deal is made, if I serve the US attorneys office, the case will be heard on the merits expeditiously and will not be dismissed on technicality. As I was refusing, I stated that I have great concerns that the US attorneys will be playing games, as they did in prior cases and will try to dismiss this case on technicality such as jurisdiction os standing. Please read 10:40 line 5. Court (meaning judge Carter ) is saying “In talking to you this way you are basically told, we are going to get to the MERITS (emphasis added) of this very quickly. The government is just asking for what THEY believe is proper service.” He did not state that I didn’t serve Obama properly, he is saying what They, the government, believes is the proper service. At 11:01 line 13. he says “I wish this would be resolved on it’s MERITS QUICKLY. And he is either not the president or he is” At 11:07 line 1 Judge Carter states “I mean if he is not president, he shouldn’t be president, if he is he should be. And we need to resolve it on the MERITS” On September the 8th judge Carter told the US Attorneys West and DeJutte that the chance of him granting motion to dismiss due to lack of standing is extremely law and he is ready to rule and have a hearing on this on Sept 11 in 3 days. At that time Gary Kreepsqueezed himself in the case representing 2 out of 48 plaintiffs and demanded more time. The hearing was postponed by nearly a month. During this month something happened. At October 5 hearing Judge Carter sounded as a completely different person. He did not sound as a brave Marine any more. He sounded scared, intimidated by somebody or something. He was trying to find ways to dump this case on another court- like DC court, drag his feet by telling us to plead the case again or dismiss on technicality- claiming no one has standing. I poured my heart out for over an hour, and at least he didn’t come up with a negative decision right then and there, but I am concerned. We had a clear deal back in July. If Judge Carter makes a 180 degrees turn now and rules for Obama and does not give me expedited discovery and hearing on the merits as he repeatedly promised during the July 13 hearing, then I and my clients were defrauded by the court. Then there is no system of justice for the citizens of this country.

Obviously.

I understand that a lot of people feel a strong emotional investment in this case. I sympathize with that. Lawyers inevitably confront that situation, and it's always hard when a person's expectations aren't grounded in reality. That can happen to the best of us, and birthers are people, too. But this description in her own words really should dissuade anyone from pinning their hopes on Orly.

I think she really does believe in what she's doing. But she doesn't know enough about procedure, precedent, or basic practice to even understand what has happened in these cases. The description she provides of what went on in court and her “deal” is make believe. It's an alternate reality in her head. And I do feel sorry for her because it's obvious she believes in this case and thinks she just has to find the right judge who will recognize the inner truth of what she is saying. Kind of like a bad writer hopelessly shopping the same old story. But courts don't work like that, as so many have ably pointed out, and so every judge betrays her in turn. She's always betrayed, because the alternative— that she doesn't have an actionable case—simply will not be acknowledged. It can't be, for reasons that are psychological and emotional, not factual.

I hope she gets over that before it does too much damage to her. And I hope people who have invested themselves in her can gain a little distance. Getting angry over make believe isn't worth it.

The 180 degree about face by this judge just confirms my suspicion that the fix is in and this contention is doomed to fail.

There has been no 180 degree turn. What there has been is misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what Judge Carter said at the July hearing, and in orders and hearings thereafter.

Orly says: "At three different occasions at 10:40, 11:01 and 11:07 of the hearing judge Carter has assured me that if this deal is made, if I serve the US attorneys office, the case will be heard on the merits expeditiously and will not be dismissed on technicality." Well, first, if you read the transcript (as she invites you to do), you'll see that there was no discussion of any "deal." Judge Carter was simply applying the law to her case. He told her that he could dismiss, and let her go up on appeal, but that would cause a substantial delay in getting to the merits of her case. Or, she could properly serve under the rules, and get the case going forward immediately.

Second, he never said that the case would not be dismissed on a technicality. What he said was 10:10 9 The law abhors closed courtroom doors. And the
10:10 10 process and technicality of how counsel get here can be
10:10 11 exacerbating.In other words, he was talking about the technicalities of proper service - how parties get IN the door, not how claims are addressed once the parties are in the door. (Now, ORLY referred to standing as a technicality in the July 13 hearing. But the Judge never did. Reread the transcript. He didn't. Every time he used the term technicality or technicalities, he was discussing the service process.)

But, most important is this. As noted above, on July 13, Judge Carter told Orly that he could dismiss, and let her go up on appeal on her claim that she had provided proper service, which would result in a substantial delay in getting to the merits of her case -- or she could properly serve under the rules, and get the (merits of the) case going forward immediately. In discussing new service v. appeal, he used the term "merits" at least eight times.

Orly's incorrect interpretation of this was that if she properly served the defendants, Judge Carter would ignore all jurisdictional and other related issues that she considers mere technicalities and hear her actual claims. And so, she -- and many here -- interpreted his every statement he made thereafter through that prism. And, because it was in "incorrect" prism, all of the assumptions based on that prism were equally flawed.

Because, that is simply not what he said.

He said that she could appeal whether the complaint was properly served, or she could properly serve, under the Rules so that he could actually get TO the complaint. In other words, getting to the "merits" meant getting TO the complaint. But, until she'd properly SERVED the complaint, he couldn't even consider what was IN the complaint. He never said - nor would any judge - that he would not consider the basic jurisdictional issues that every court has to consider. And he never once called these considerations "technicalities."

As for Judge Carter's various comments shown in the official transcripts, about how the uncertainty is bad for the Country, or how it's important to resolve the question of legitimacy, or how Obama is either legitimate or not and we need to get to the merits, etc. .... consider going back and reading the transcripts again.

What I think you will find is that when he did that, he was doing it in the context of responding to her arguments (or the DOJ's arguments). So, for example, he made one or two of these comments in the context of rejecting Taitz's request to have Drake & Robinson dismissed. He said, essentially, you say that this case is so important and that uncertainty must be resolved, yet your proposed actions would only delay the case. With respect to the DOJ, he made one of the comments in the context of telling them that they need to accept proper service on Obama's behalf. There, he essentially said, it's bad for the government to have this pending case, so accept service already and get it over with. If you read the various similar statements he made in the context in which he made them, you will see, I think, that this is so.

In short, the apparently disappointment in how yesterday's hearing went was caused not by any change whatsoever in Judge Carter, but by the fact that lawyers -- who should know better have mislead many people as to what Judge Carter said, and/or what he meant (in context of understanding simple, basic legal principles) by what he previously said.

Absolutely. They put on a stupid farce only because they had to. They would have much rather the whole thing gone away. The Republicans in the Senate, as usual, were spinless wimps. I was glad to see Trent Lott eventually go. But this is a digression.

Actually it is not a digression, because the seeds sown through the years of the history of this nation are finally being reaped wherein liberalism has through 'precedence' made the Constitution darn near null and void.

BamaKennedy would not be sitting atop the world tearing apart every institutional fabric of our society brick by brick had this nation NOT given over to 'precedence' the tool that that now creates the law.

Liberalism is now the law of the land.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.