Skip to comments.Orly Transcript from July 13 hearing
Posted on 10/06/2009 9:59:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
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 Ive 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 its 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 shouldnt 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 didnt 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.
Not a single case has been dismissed "on a technicality". They have, so far, all been dismissed as a matter of law. Justiciability and standing are paramount matters of law in American jurisprudence. They aren't - in any way - technical elements of a particular case.
A technicality might be that the margins on your pleadings are incorrect, or are unsigned, or your service of process is unsatisfactory or incomplete. Actually, the judge in this case - Carter - has given Orly tremendous deference with respect to her technical errors - errors that would have bounced this case long ago if she had been appearing in front of other judges perhaps.
There have been a number rulings and those rulings have certainly included opinions and decisions. There hasn't been any discovery because not a single judge has ruled that any of these cases reach a level that would justify discovery. It's as simple as that.
And neither did that damn Andrew Johnson!
I haven’t had the chance to read the actual transcript and am still going on several people’s notes, but thought this worth sharing as a factual point:
Judge Carter is factually incorrect on this point:
BARNETT V OBAMA HEARING
OCTOBER 5, 2009
17 THE COURT: He was already sworn in before
18 this case ever got to my desk. You had a lack of
19 diligence. Why wait until that last day?
20 I’m going to make a finding that the opportunity
21 was lost for the Electoral College to address it. Why
22 did you wait until the last day, and until 3:00 p.m. at
Barack Obama was “sworn in” the next day, in private, at 7:35 p.m.
Obviously, the public “swearing in” on January 20 was insufficient, or the second “swearing in” on the night of January 21 would not have taken place.
Going into the 2008 election there were grassroots conservatives all across the land who were not at all satisfied with the choices offered them. And so, they took action themselves to place their choice for President of the United States, Dr. Alan Keyes, on their own state ballots, either as a party candidate or as a qualified write-in candidate. This was a completely citizen organized and led campaign.
By the time it was over, because of their efforts, voters representing 357 electoral votes had the opportunity to cast their ballot for Alan Keyes.
Here's the final list:
Alabama – Write-in, automatic
Alaska – Write-in filed
Arizona – No
Arkansas – No
California – AIP on the ballot
Colorado – AIP on the ballot
Connecticut – No
D.C. – Write-in filed
Delaware – Write-in, automatic
Florida – AIP on the ballot
Georgia – No
Hawaii – No
Idaho – Write-in filed
Illinois – No
Indiana – No
Iowa – Write-in, automatic
Kansas – Write-in filed
Kentucky – Write-in filed
Louisiana – No
Maine – No
Maryland – Write-in filed
Massachusetts – No
Michigan – Write-in filed
Minnesota – Write-in filed
Mississippi – No
Missouri – No
Montana – No
Nebraska – Write-in filed
Nevada - No
New Hampshire – Write-in, automatic
New Jersey – Write-in, automatic
New Mexico - No
New York – Write-in filed
North Carolina – No
North Dakota – No
Ohio – Write-in filed
Oklahoma - No
Oregon – Write-in, automatic
Pennsylvania – Write-in, automatic
Rhode Island – Write-in, automatic
South Carolina - No
South Dakota – No
Tennessee – No
Texas – Write-in filed
Utah – Write-in filed
Vermont – Write-in, automatic
Virginia – Write-in filed
Washington – Write-in filed
West Virginia – No
Wisconsin – Write-in filed
Wyoming – Write-in, automatic
That is almost exactly two-thirds of the available electoral votes.
“These are political acts, not legal ones.”
We’ve had the soapbox, we’ve had the ballot box, and we’re coming close to the jury box being denied us. There will soon be no reasonable alternatives.
Everybody has the soapbox in a free country. It's an equal opportunity tool. We're either good enough with it to get people to pay attention or we're not. Last time I checked, conservative talk outlets weren't exactly a vanishing breed.
The ballotbox is the whole democracy thing. It's a civil compact where we're supposed to accept that sometimes we lose. We get another try soon enough.
And as Old Deck Hand has explained, no one has been denied anything in court. There's no entitlement to have court procedures and central aspects of the law ignored simply because we feel our case, unlike all the others, is just so extra special that it's a moral affront to treat us like any other plaintiff. Which, again, is what the rule of law and democracy are all about.
He may have been on enough ballots but keyes received a little over 47,000 votes nationally of which a little over 46,000 were cast in CA. Thus with that vote total nationally he couldn’t have won one state’s EC much less the 357 EC votes.
46,000 were cast in CA
40,600 were cast in CA
As I’ve now said to your crowd several times, that’s utterly irrelevant.
Here's your reasonable alternative. Some day, after all these people have been explaining to you that there never was a valid case, and every court has turned away birther lawsuits, you should finally recognize they've been saying something true that you just didn't want to hear.
Then accept that the American people made a mistake voting for Obama (not the first time that's happened), and you just need to do what you can to make sure he doesn't get a second term. That's a reasonable alternative.
However, I fear many of the birthers are going to be unwilling to face the fact that they were wrong all along. Instead, they will be screaming about the constitution being obsolete and demanding violent overthrow of the government. They will become the enemy of the constitution they accuse Obama of being.
I noticed something in your link about Obama retaking the Oath later that night. It mentions Chester Authur took it twice as well and he was found to be not be a Natural Born Citizen later on. Coincidence?????
thats utterly irrelevant.
So keyes is doing utterly irrelevant things..... hmmmmmm.... must be some reason.
Arthur wasn’t found not to be a natural born citizen. There was suspicion he might have really been born in Canada.
My god, you either ARE a lawyer or you need to be one. Your answer is one GIANT technicality.
Well, yeah. That's what some of us have been pointing out for a while. They can't go into court and demand the judge *investigate* to see if there's an infringement. They have the cart before the horse.
Your post makes no sense.
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.