TRANSCRIPT FROM JUDGE DAVID CARTER HEARING 10-5-09

 

10:49 6 Now, Ms. Taitz, the lectern's yours, please.
10:49 7 MS. TAITZ: Well, Your Honor, you brought an
10:49 8 example of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I'm going to bring
10:49 9 another example just to show how absolutely ridiculous this
10:49 10 whole argument was.
10:49 11 And right -- actually, before the election, when
10:49 12 I'd written to Secretary of State Bowen and she said that
10:49 13 they did not check credentials of the candidate. I have
10:49 14 written an article, and this article was published in the
10:50 15 local newspaper. And it stated -- and it might be a more
10:50 16 extreme article, but it stated Osama bin Laden can be on
10:50 17 your ballot in the next election because, arguendo,
10:50 18 hypothetically speaking, if we allow this ridiculous
10:50 19 argument that one can become a President and
10:50 20 Commander-in-Chief by virtue of massive fraud and not one
10:50 21 citizen in the country, not one judge in the country can
10:50 22 challenge it aside from biased Congress and Senate that has
10:50 23 the majority of the same party, we have a dictatorship. We
10:50 24 have a tyranny. We don't have a Constitution. We don't
10:50 25 have a rule of law.
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
84
1 Because I argue somebody like 10:50 Osama bin Laden can
10:50 2 show up in this country and just like Barack Obama write, I
10:50 3 am eligible, and he can bring $700 million from Saudi Arabia
10:51 4 buy an election and then say too late, too late, deja vu,
10:51 5 fait accompli, we're done.
10:51 6 THE COURT: Let me go back to my question, then.
10:51 7 If the government's right and impeachment is available,
10:51 8 minimally impeachment, or Congress implementing some method
10:51 9 to resolve this issue, why hasn't that been raised by
10:51 10 congressional representatives or senators?
10:51 11 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I'm not here representing
10:51 12 the Congress.
10:51 13 THE COURT: But better yet -- I'm sorry, that's
10:51 14 unfair on my part. Has it been raised?
10:51 15 MS. TAITZ: But, Your Honor, if you have given the
10:51 16 government time to --
10:51 17 THE COURT: Answer that question for me. You'll
10:51 18 have plenty of time. Has it been raised?
10:51 19 MS. TAITZ: As I have read to you the letters that
10:51 20 were sent by the senators and congressmen to their
10:52 21 constituency, and I might repeat it, they have stated, yet
10:52 22 again, "that Senate ethics rules preclude me from becoming
10:52 23 personally involved in pending litigation. I will sincerely
10:52 24 hope this matter can be fully and promptly resolved by the
10:52 25 courts."
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
85
1 THE COURT: I'm sorry. That 10:52 does not answer my
10:52 2 question.
10:52 3 MS. TAITZ: Well, that answers it. Congress and
10:52 4 Senate responded to the citizen by saying if I as a senator
10:52 5 get involved, then it would be prejudicial. Ethics
10:52 6 committee prevents me from getting involved in cases like
10:52 7 this one because it would be undue influence on you as a
10:52 8 district judge, and that's why the senators and congressmen
10:52 9 sustained so that you can decide this case on the merits.
10:52 10 And what the Department of Justice did, they
10:52 11 completely misrepresented the issue. They kept saying duly
10:53 12 elected. No. Sorry.
10:53 13 If one got in the White House by virtue of massive
10:53 14 fraud when I have presented to you statements from two
10:53 15 licensed investigators from different sides -- different
10:53 16 parts of the country showing that Mr. Obama has 39 different
10:53 17 social security numbers in national databases and the social
10:53 18 security number that he used most often is the social
10:53 19 security number of an individual who is deceased today, who
10:53 20 was born in 1890 in the state of Connecticut, Your Honor, I
10:53 21 submit to you this is massive fraud.
10:53 22 And we know how corrupt the government and the
10:53 23 Congress is. They have the same ruling party in government
10:53 24 and in Congress. They, no matter what, will not -- will not
10:53 25 decide this issue. Even if I were to present to them a
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
86
1 videotape of Mr. Obama being born in Kenya, 10:54 and there is a
10:54 2 group of Kenyan doctors speaking Swahili all around him,
10:54 3 they will still find that this is insufficient evidence. No
10:54 4 matter what I presented to them they are simply not willing
10:54 5 to take the challenge.
10:54 6 So when we have a ruling party in Congress and
10:54 7 Senate and in government who is taking away our
10:54 8 constitutional rights, in that case, the judiciary has the
10:54 9 right to intervene. And we have numerous cases that provide
10:54 10 such power of intervention. We have Morrison v. Olson from
10:54 11 1988. We have Bowsher v. Synar of also 1988. We have
10:54 12 Flast v. Cohen from 1968.
10:55 13 And, most importantly, just last year we had
10:55 14 District of Columbia v. Heller. This is the case that
10:55 15 overrides all the prior cases.
10:55 16 This is the case that says that ordinary citizens
10:55 17 of this country have the right to enforce the Constitution
10:55 18 of the United States of America and the provisions of this
10:55 19 Constitution.
10:55 20 We have according to D.C. v. Heller, the Ninth
10:55 21 Amendment and the Fifth and the 14th Amendment give any
10:55 22 citizen, any person sitting in this room, not even members
10:55 23 of the military, but any citizen of this country
10:55 24 constitutional rights to uphold the -- to uphold the
10:56 25 Constitution, not only enumerated powers, but also
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
87
1 10:56 unenumerated powers.
10:56 2 We had Griswold v. Connecticut. This is a case
10:56 3 that dealt with contraceptives. This was an unenumerated
10:56 4 power that was not mentioned in the Constitution, and the
10:56 5 right of citizens was upheld there.
10:56 6 I submit to you, Your Honor, that in this case in
10:56 7 Barnett v. Obama, et al., when we are raising the issue of
10:56 8 Article II, Section 1, this is power that specifically -- we
10:56 9 have to -- specifically enumerated, specifically mentioned
10:56 10 in the Constitution, we have a clear definition in the
10:56 11 Constitution, and as such, not only members of the military,
10:56 12 but any citizen have the rights to uphold those powers.
10:57 13 Now, in terms of standing, I would like to add one
10:57 14 more point. As it was mentioned in Rodearmel, and it was
10:57 15 mentioned in Clark v. United States of America and Allen v.
10:57 16 Board, when one, as part of his employment, a person has to
10:57 17 take an oath and later on is forced to violate his oath of
10:57 18 office, that was found to be a de facto taking of his
10:57 19 employment. And therefore, Your Honor, you are here, I'm
10:57 20 sure, day in and day out as a district judge taking --
10:58 21 hearing cases where employment was taken by the government
10:58 22 from the citizens in different capacities.
10:58 23 So we do have standing. At the very minimum of
10:58 24 each and every person who took an oath, even people -- even
10:58 25 members of the military that are now in the reserves, they
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
88
1 still have a form of employment. Their 10:58 reservist status is
10:58 2 a form of employment. As a matter of fact, Major Cook
10:58 3 stated something like 12 or $13,000 a year that they receive
10:58 4 as reservists, as active reservists. That's sufficient for
10:58 5 standing.
10:58 6 Moreover, all of the citizens have standing as
10:58 7 taxpayers. Each and every one of my plaintiffs, each and
10:58 8 every one of my clients is a taxpayer, and as such, based on
10:59 9 Flast v. Cohen, they do have standing as taxpayers.
10:59 10 We have a salary that we have paid Mr. Obama. If
10:59 11 it is found that he got into this position based on fraud
10:59 12 with social security number of another person, refusing to
10:59 13 unseal his vital records with a certification of live birth
10:59 14 that according to the -- according to forensic document
10:59 15 experts is a forged document, that affects us as taxpayers.
10:59 16 Because we've paid his salary, and it was obtained by fraud.
10:59 17 But moreover, we're not talking here, Your Honor,
10:59 18 only about 200,000, 250,000, I'm not sure what salary of the
11:00 19 President is. We are talking about billions and trillions
11:00 20 of dollars that are leaving U.S. Treasury, going into
11:00 21 directions unknown.
11:00 22 Just one example, when, based on the stimulus
11:00 23 package signed by Mr. Obama, AIG got $130 billion from
11:00 24 U.S. Treasury to stimulate U.S. economy, and 59 percent of
11:00 25 this money, which is closed to 80 billion -- with a "B" --
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
89
1 $80 billion went to foreign banks, we have 11:00 a right to ask,
11:00 2 excuse me, who is this man? Is he legitimate? Is he giving
11:00 3 away billions of U.S. dollars to foreign banks legitimately?
11:00 4 We have the right to ask this question.
11:01 5 Now, in terms of the ripeness of the case. I
11:01 6 submit to you, Your Honor, that when I brought my first
11:01 7 case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, on
11:01 8 behalf of Mr. Turner and other plaintiffs, the only answer I
11:01 9 got from the Supreme Court of California was one word:
11:01 10 Denied.
11:01 11 I don't know why was it denied. They did not give
11:01 12 me any explanation. However, a number of constitutional
11:01 13 scholars have argued that the reason the case was denied,
11:01 14 because prior to election, it was not ripe yet. Because the
11:01 15 citizens of this country could not show any harm before the
11:01 16 election. Your Honor, I submit you to, God knows we've
11:01 17 experienced plenty of harm now. Now --
11:02 18 (Clapping in courtroom.)
11:02 19 MS. TAITZ: It is ripe, Your Honor. It is ripe to
11:02 20 review this issue.
11:02 21 And again, what is the most important point, the
11:02 22 government time and again intentionally misrepresented this
11:02 23 issue, this is not an issue of politics. This is an issue
11:02 24 of quo warranto, clearly quo warranto.
11:02 25 If the framers of the Constitution didn't want us,
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
90
1 the citizens of this country, to come to 11:02 court like this one
11:02 2 and challenge the issue of legitimacy of any federal
11:02 3 employee, any federal officer, including the President, they
11:02 4 would not have included quo warranto in statutes. The
11:02 5 reason we have quo warranto statutes, and it's in D.C. that
11:03 6 can be applied, as I stated, in the State of California and
11:03 7 in the Supreme Court of the United States of America --
11:03 8 THE COURT: How are you precluded from doing that,
11:03 9 regardless of this Court's ruling? In other words,
11:03 10 whichever way this Court rules, why can't you bring quo
11:03 11 warranto in the District of Colombia?
11:03 12 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I have -- well, I have
11:03 13 submitted originally on behalf of my clients a quo warranto.
11:03 14 It was submitted on behalf of attorney general -- attorney
11:03 15 general on behalf of Major General Childers, on behalf of
11:03 16 State Representative Niceley, on behalf of Timothy
11:03 17 Comerford, state representative of New Hampshire, Lieutenant
11:03 18 Colonel Easterling -- I'm sorry, Lieutenant Easterling,
11:04 19 Lieutenant Colonel Earl Graef, on behalf of Officer Grimes,
11:04 20 and on behalf of a major in U.S. Marine Corps, Mr. Cannon.
11:04 21 I have submitted that March 1st to Attorney
11:04 22 General Eric Holder. And Eric Holder had plenty of time to
11:04 23 do God knows what, but in seven months he could not find
11:04 24 time to even respond. And, Your Honor, I have submitted
11:04 25 certified mail receipts. Attorney General has received the
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
91
1 paperwork on March 17th, March 27, and 11:04 then a number of my
11:04 2 supporters have submitted and resubmitted. Nothing was ever
11:04 3 done.
11:04 4 I have also submitted in the District of Colombia
11:05 5 to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia,
11:05 6 Jeffrey A. Taylor. And in prior submissions, I have shown
11:05 7 certified mail receipts.
11:05 8 THE COURT: Why do you believe this Court has quo
11:05 9 warranto jurisdiction?
11:05 10 MS. TAITZ: As I have stated, Your Honor, this
11:05 11 Court -- and I have read from the statutes, California
11:05 12 Choice of Rules would require based on governmental interest
11:05 13 test that is adopted by the State of California to apply the
11:05 14 defendant's home law. And when the government stated that
11:05 15 this is not a proper choice of law and jurisdiction in their
11:05 16 reply to my response, they opened themselves to this
11:05 17 decision. Fine. You don't like the law in the State of
11:05 18 California. Here you go, we can apply, according to the
11:06 19 California choice of law, the law of the District of
11:06 20 Columbia and -- because each and every defendant is a
11:06 21 resident of the District of Columbia.
11:06 22 And District of Columbia has very clear quo
11:06 23 warranto statutes, and therefore, Your Honor, that gives you
11:06 24 an opportunity to decide based on quo warranto whether
11:06 25 Mr. Obama got into his position duly or by fraud.
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
92
1 And if he did get into this 11:06 position by fraud,
11:06 2 based on the same quo warranto, you have the power to remove
11:06 3 one from office that he is usurping, that he is not eligible
11:06 4 to hold. And that's what I have argued in my pleadings.
11:07 5 And I would like to bring one more point.
11:07 6 Mr. West has stated that it would be a disaster to allow the
11:07 7 citizens of this country to assert their constitutional
11:07 8 rights in different courts. And as a matter of fact, couple
11:07 9 days ago, in his pleading, Mr. Kreep said that it's
11:07 10 irrelevant -- that the constitutional rights are irrelevant.
11:07 11 Your Honor, I submit to you that they have no clue
11:07 12 what they're talking about, what disaster is, because they
11:07 13 never experienced it. I was born in a communist country. I
11:07 14 came from a country where citizens did not have a right to
11:07 15 uphold their constitutional rights. Have you ever heard of
11:07 16 any attorney being able to challenge Stalin? Or -- or Mao
11:08 17 Tse Tung? Or in today's world, somebody like Fidel Castro
11:08 18 or Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? In those countries,
11:08 19 the laws exist on paper only but not de facto. The
11:08 20 constitutional rights like we have in this country, the
11:08 21 Ninth Amendment, are only on paper. It was never enforced.
11:08 22 Your Honor, I would like to give you one little
11:08 23 example, and that example from my own family.
11:08 24 My great uncle was sent to Siberia, to a civilian
11:08 25 labor camp in Siberia. His attorneys could not effectively
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
93
1 challenge the orders. The courts, the 11:08 judges were just
11:08 2 puppets of the regime. I remember my great aunt. She was a
11:08 3 beautiful blonde lady, that when it happened, when her
11:09 4 husband was sent to Siberia, decided that she doesn't want
11:09 5 to live anymore. She decided that she wanted to end her
11:09 6 life. She had two young children. She sat in the bus stop.
11:09 7 She cut her veins. Luckily, she was saved by a good
11:09 8 samaritan, a neighbor.
11:09 9 And I remember that my relatives, both of my
11:09 10 grandparents were doing charity, and that was a very special
11:09 11 charity. Well, if you can imagine a big Russian hat. They
11:09 12 were going from home to home with this Russian hat. People
11:09 13 were throwing money. And that's how this lady and her two
11:09 14 children survived. When her husband came from Siberia, he
11:09 15 didn't live long, for long, his health was broken and he
11:09 16 died soon thereafter.
11:09 17 Your Honor, that's what happens when citizens of
11:10 18 the country don't have the right to enforce their
11:10 19 constitutional rights that are given to them by God, that
11:10 20 are given to them by the Constitution.
11:10 21 (Applause from audience.)
11:10 22 MS. TAITZ: And I know, Your Honor, that is a real
11:10 23 disaster. And I was just horrified from the moment
11:10 24 Mr. Obama started running, and the moment he opened his
11:10 25 mouth and I could hear what he was saying, I knew where we
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
94
1 are going, because I lived it, I felt it 11:10 on my own skin, and
11:10 2 it was just one nightmare. And I worked on this issue
11:10 3 24/7/365. I was not a constitutional lawyer before. But
11:10 4 this is such an important issue that I felt I have to work
11:10 5 not 24, but 25/7/365.
11:10 6 And I know that you've been -- you served as a
11:11 7 Marine and you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I
11:11 8 know that you took an oath to uphold the Constitution as a
11:11 9 state judge and later as a federal judge, and I hope that
11:11 10 you will not take from my clients, from all the people here,
11:11 11 from all the citizens of this country their right to uphold
11:11 12 the Constitution, their right to have the legitimate
11:11 13 President. We have quo warranto statutes. You have the
11:11 14 right to enforce those statutes, and I hope that you will
11:11 15 not take those rights.
11:11 16 Thank you, Your Honor.
11:11 17 (Applause from the audience.)