Rovingpatrol's Blog

Judge Carter Loses His Balls

Posted in politics by roving on October 29, 2009

Well, that was a big waste of time. Judge Carter has decided somehow votes trump the Constitution when he granted motion to dismiss. Although I knew he was going dismiss  anyway because he was possibly, 1. paid off. or 2. threaten.

If you compare Judge Carter from when the case first came into his court to the last day in court, its fairly obvious something got to him.  He was practically grabbing at air trying to find a way to drop the whole thing then. So he took some time to think up some excuses that seem plausible in his own mind. Its to bad he didn’t stand in front of a mirror and read aloud what he just wrote.

Judge Carter saying the voters voted for Obama is one reason for dismissal is a slap in the face of the millions who have fought and died for this country.  Its bad enough Obama thinks the Constitution is flawed but when we now have judges totally ignoring the Constitution, we are in big trouble.

Judge Carter is also now a psychic. Out of desperation to dismiss he accuses Orly Taiz of committing future crimes by alleging she was going to have witnesses commit perjury. I’m no lawyer but I would think this alone would be a very strong argument on appeal.  Do we or do we not have a right to face our accusers?

Judge Carter also becomes bizarre by saying we we have a duty to pay our IRS taxes but have no right to question Obama’s eligibility.

Judge Carter made it sound as though he had his mind made up from day one which gives me the impression he purposely wasted our time.

I fear we have no honest Judges left in this country and the longer Obama is in office and able to appoint even more judges, our rights are finished.

The way his order is written, I wonder if he even wrote it at all or maybe he had is new law clerk write it for him. You know, the one with ties to Obama.

The whole court system is corrupted.


6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. westsidedavid said, on October 30, 2009 at 12:10 am

    This article is a pile of insults, claptrap, and utter nonsense. I believe that the author has little or no understanding of the seriousness of the issues involved or the disruption of the constitutional government that this lawsuit threatened. Orly Taitz wanted the federal government emasculated pending some new election. She tried hard to intimidate a sitting federal judge through brazen tactics that should get her disbarred. And yet this author can find nothing wrong with her antics and blames it all on the supposed corruption of the judge. Hogwash!

  2. Mike said, on October 30, 2009 at 5:24 am

    *snort* Lost his balls? Kept his brains, more like.

  3. Jack said, on October 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    JUDGE CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly’s Candidate fraud case as well — all this on a red herring that Orly’s case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly’s actual case. Pretty nifty!!!

  4. Ed Darrell said, on October 31, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    So, you call all defenders of the Constitution as “lost his balls?”

    We have a tradition here in America, we’ll introduce you when you come. We believe an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, and we insist that in civil suits, the preponderance of the evidence hold sway.

    There’s no serious case against Obama. The judge saw that.

  5. rxsid said, on November 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Obama admits two things critical in this issue:

    1. His father was a foreign national.
    2. Obama was born with foreign citizenship (by way of his foreign national father). He even admitted as much on his fight the smears campaign web site.

    Even assuming Obama was born in HI (with no proof to date), he was born a dual national.

    There is no reasonable chance, that the framers intended the NBC requirement for POTUS to include dual nationals. There was no known definition for NBC, during the time of the writing of the Constitution, that said Dual National at Birth = Natural Born Citizen. It’s completely contrary to why they put the requirement in there (see Jay’s letter to Washington – written before the requirement first showed up in their draft of the Constitution).

    It would mean that the King of England could marry a U.S. citizen woman, and if their child was born on U.S. soil, that child (an heir to the British crown, and British citizen at birth via the father) would be eligible to be our President and Commander in Chief.

    Or, even more dangerous than that, a dictator like Dr. Ill from North Korean could do the same, marry a U.S. woman, she has the child here in the U.S. and viola! The child is POTUS eligible. With the dumbed down society that listens to what Hollywood and the State Run Media tell them to think…someone with that background could be voted in.

    His being allowed to usurp the presidency, as a dual national at birth, sets a very dangerous precedent for the future security of this country.

    Yes, the Constitution matters. If people don’t like the NBC requirement, then work to get the Constitution amended. The process can not be subverted…for anyone.

  6. Ed Darrell said, on November 5, 2009 at 8:18 am

    There is no reasonable chance, that the framers intended the NBC requirement for POTUS to include dual nationals.

    Sure there is. John Adams wouldn’t have wanted to exclude his American-born grandchildren, nor would anyone else. The framers had a positive reason to frame the thing more broadly, at least in Alexander Hamilton’s case. There is no reason to think the framers intended to exclude any American citizen born on American soil, like Obama. No writing makes any positive claim to such exclusion.

    Plus, we’ve already had a president and a vice president in the same category. Precedents count.

    Obama’s in. If we can keep the birthers sounding like complete idiots for two more years, it’s likely Obama will be in until 2017.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: