-snip-
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
Considering that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that the statement, “dismissed with prejudice,” closes a case in such a way as to prevent the filing of a new action or the filing of an amended complaint to continue the case with a modified claim, Dr. Taitz’s filing gave the court the benefit of the doubt, and considered all the injustice and dishonesty already shown by Judge Carter as something that, in view of greater issues, could be overlooked for the present.
But no such honor was to be found sitting at Judge Carter’s desk of tyranny.
His in-chamber order, issued today was as brief as it was laughably mendacious:
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): CLARIFYING ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF
OCTOBER 29, 2009
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice.
The Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
Mendacious, because no matter what Carter thinks his authority is, his authority and power are not capable of changing the past and adding words or significance, wherein no words or signification existed.
History herself recalls, that Judge Carter’s ruling of Oct. 29th clearly did not contain the words “dismissed with prejudice” nor any statement that the dismissal was “without leave to amend.”
Carter has, thus, closed the case and found himself guilty of the most grave breach of judicial ethics: lying to plaintiffs and their counsel in July in promising them a hearing on merits, as a trick to avoid having to render a default judgment against Obama for not responding to the service of court papers; hiring as a clerk a lawyer who is politically tied to the defendants; including false and unsubstantiated claims in his ruling of Oct. 29th with a purpose of defaming and libeling Dr. Orly Taitz; and finally, with great mendacity, claiming his order of Oct. 29th was something it never was in law.
Not the least of his crimes was his trashing of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in his Oct. 29th ruling.
- end snip-
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4829
And now we hear the other side of the story.
Thank you.
Would you say it boils down to who has the most power the bend the law to suit their goals?