Cloud Law up in the clouds


Federal Judge David O. Carter and the Dismissal of "Keyes v. Obama"

A dark ominous cloud of judicial impropriety looms over the U.S. federal court system. The darkest of this precipitous cloud formation is that which hangs over the Central District of California, in the wake of U.S. District Judge David O. Carter's provocative decision to dismiss the case of "Keyes v. Obama," which a firm majority of the informed and concerned American electorate considered vital to a determination of whether Barack H. Obama, alias Barry Soetoro, is constitutionally eligible to continue as President of the United States.

I wonder what actually went on in the mind of the 64 year old federal judge, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, after he had firmly stated, in early November of this year, that pursuing the case was vitally important to a constitutional determination of Obama's basic eligibility as a natural born citizen of the United States, that is, whether he was actually born in the State of Hawaii or in Mombasa, Kenya, Africa. As a former U.S. Marine Corps combat officer in Vietnam, Carter has a history of being a stand-up jurist, and his statement, that "soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors sent into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be assured that the President ordering them into combat is eligible to hold that office and issue those orders," conveyed a poignant need to adjudicate the issues of "Keyes v. Obama" in a speedy and judicially responsible manner.

Then came the U.S. Department of Justice intervening improperly, in a totally non-governmental capacity, for Obama, using U.S. tax dollars to petition Judge Carter to dismiss the lawsuit, in the same fashion that eight of Carter's judicial colleagues had done since shortly after Obama's nomination in 2008, just after the first federal lawsuit was filed against the man. I wonder what Judge Carter was thinking as he was being intimidated by USDOJ attorneys, who challenged the judge's authority and jurisdiction to decide whether Obama was culpable of duplicity and fraud, and whether the dubious President should step down as the U.S. chief executive if found culpable. This was, of course, only after Carter had ruled that a trial on the merits of the case would commence in January 2010; but even then, Carter had refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and many Americans believed that he would proceed with the trial. Yet, Carter declared a dismissal, and after extensive research into the subsequent course of events, I have found it reasonable to suspect that Judge Carter was very probably the unfortunate recipient of some threatening, well-worded telephone calls, and e-mails from deceitful politicians who desperately wanted to see the case dismissed. What is that you say, that this is pure speculation?

Well, let's get down to basic reality, sad history repeats itself frequently; for such politically contrived corruption has been quite common in the course of 20th Century American government; and bad things have frequently happened to good people, by artifice, who have attempted at their own risk to ensure that justice prevailed. Just within the past five years, Stanley R. Hilton, a preeminent scholar and noted attorney in San Francisco, represented over a hundred 9/11 victims' families in a lawsuit he filed against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others of the Bush administration, for complicity and direct involvement in the 9/11 bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, of San Francisco, ordered Hilton to drop the lawsuit, which he refused to do. Subsequently, thereafter, began a number of stealthy burglaries into Hilton's San Francisco law offices resulting in the theft and destruction of vital material evidence linking Bush, Cheney, and others to the 9/11 attacks. Finally, when Illston couldn't get Hilton to drop the lawsuit, she curtly dismissed the case on grounds of "sovereign immunity," essentially declaring that a President can do anything during his time in office, even commit mass murder, and do it will civil and criminal impunity. More distantly, the lengths that corrupt politicians will go to ensure that their wily stratagems are implemented have been well documented. When a U.S. Navy commander with a heavy conscience came forward, in February 1968, to testify before a Senate Foreign Relations Committe hearing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not what it was originally reported by the Pentagon, in order to warrant the massive escallation of ground troops in Vietnam in 1965, Senator J. William Fulbright discovered that the honest naval officer was "picked up by heavy-handed CIA intelligence operatives under White House order and committed involuntarily to a psychiatric ward for several weeks."

Perhaps Judge David O. Carter, with his brilliant Rhodes Scholar-level mind, seriously considered Susan Illston's horrendous precedental ruling, and, perhaps, the perceived intimidations from the DOJ and regarded them as potentially ominous.

As a matter of historical record, there were, also, quite a few German judges, mentioned in my earlier Ezine essay, who, during the years leading up to the disastrous dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, either stepped down from their judicial positions or abandoned their judicial ethics and joined the Nazi Party, when they were told by the SS and the Gestapo that the formerly adored Weimar Constitution was no longer law, and that Nazi law reigned supreme. Actually, there were more than a few of the German judges who chose to side with the Nazis, at the threat of death.

Yet, there is another salient matter to consider in this quasi-legal fray. All American trial judges, federal and state, worry about their rulings being eventually overturned, on a basis of law, by appellate courts. When mistakes based entirely upon law are, supposedly, made by trial judges, the appellate courts are there to rightfully remand the cases back to the trial court for a correction of the errors. Nonetheless, Judge Carter probably realized the contrived political machinations surrounding "Keyes v. Obama," and that a ruling by him ordering Barack Obama to produce his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and the other undisclosed records sought by the plaintiff's attorney, even if correct, would be automatically reversed on a totally political basis by a federal appeals court. Though the facts and merits of the plaintiff's case might have clearly shown that Barack H. Obama fraudulently acted in a deliberate fashion to conceal the truth about his birth, by spending approximately 1.5 million dollars in legal expenses to keep from producing a 12 dollar certified copy of his original long-form birth certificate, the case would never have been allowed to proceed to trial.

Whatever the actual cause for the unfortunate dismissal, whether Judge David O. Carter was concerned about the perceived threats, or merely realized the absolute futility of proceeding to trial on the merits of the case, another example of a President (this time dubiously elected) being above the law has emerged. When I think of the great John Adams, lawyer, patriot, and the second American President, saying before the Massachusetts Assembly that the United States is a nation of laws, and not of men, I am utterly indignant at the appalling Machiavellian politicization of basic justice now prevalent in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the federal government. It would seem that the American republic is no longer, in form and substance, what it was a decade-or-more before the turn of the 20th Century; and that this nation, which was once a great constitutional republic, might sadly be at a point of no return from a mutated form of government destructive to the ends espoused in the Constitution of the United States.
About the Author:

Check out more information on mint tin favors

Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.