Posted on | January 4, 2013 | 4 Comments
3:59 PM (4 minutes ago)
Thank you very much for sending me this message (on the background of all your busyness).
I would re-phrase a bit the words of that other supporter:
Orly Taitz is a Biblical Saint because only a person with prophetic character is capable to pursue the Justice and Truth with such a tenacity against such odds and against the overwhelming baseness of the people of the time.
Now I would like to add my 5 cent input about the recent hearing, what seemed really grotesque.
1) I do not know how to refer this principle in judicial terms, however …
Isn’t it presumed that each and every government official MUST become a whistle-blower as soon as any indication of a crime is brought to his attention?!
If an official (especially a judge) receives a tip or report (may be even false) that a crime is in progress, say a woman is being raped. Isn’t his duty first to immediately authorize intervention in order to stop the crime, rather than to second guess it like may be that woman had given a consent?
How could a dutiful judge ignore the signals of forgeries, fraud, and other illegalities in personal documents brought to him, while say IRS encourages the citizenry to (anonymously!) report on other citizens suspected in evading taxes?!
Judge England had violated his duty of whistle-blower in the most grotesque manner. He dared to second guess experts and you who brought the proofs (not merely tips) of multiple documental fraud, instead of rushing to compel production of the originals.
2) You brilliantly rebuffed the near idiotic statement of the judge and the attorney, as though the Constitution does not require from a candidate (or anybody) possession and production of the valid papers. And you also mention a common sense, which sounded near inappropriate for their “pure legal minds”.
Perhaps next time it would be better to refer them to the fact, that no judicial system relies only on the constitution, and no constitution is presumed to spell out each and every legal detail. That is why they make laws and procedures for specifying the details and definitions mentioned in the constitution. I am sure this is a trivial issue in jurisprudence. If that judge dared to utter things like that, it means that he lost the last semblance of professionalism. In reply to this, you could reach for your ID card and showing it to the judge ask him: Can I shred it and live without it because it too was not mentioned in the constitution?
Just a couple of thoughts…
May God bless you time and again!