I wonder what is going on in the mind of sixty-five year old Federal District Judge David O. Carter since he proclaimed, on July 13, 2009, in his Santa Ana, California courtroom that the case filed by attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Keyes v. Obama, will move forward in the attempt of the plaintiff to seek a court mandate to force President Barack Obama to disclose his original birth certificate for public scrutiny. I wonder how many censuring calls he has received from his fellow judges around the country, the ones who have curtly dismissed the same, and similar, cases seeking public disclosure of Barack H. Obama's original birth certificate and his other professional and educational records. Perhaps Obama, himself, has given the judge a call to discuss his provocative decision.

From what I know about the man, Carter, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran, must vividly recall, and occasionally reflect on, the oath he took in 1967 upon being commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. military, which was only to protect, preserve, and defend Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Similarly, he took another oath of office before assuming the duties of a federal judge, on October 22, 1998, after nomination by President Bill Clinton on June 35, 1990, and confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 2009. The oath, per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is worded as shown below:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as U.S. District Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Quite evident to the reader, in the above oath, is the allegiance sworn by any federal district judge to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Moreover, that individual judge swears to God, and to the people of the United States, a promise to properly administer justice according to all prevailing laws of the United States. If this is so, I wonder why Judge Carter has been the only federal judge, prior to and subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, to consider the requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution, for the President to be a natural born citizen, as a law that should be enforced. Judge Carter's statement, that, as a former U.S. Marine, he realizes the importance of a person being constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, indicates his apparent willingness to see that constitutional law is properly administered and followed in his court. His actions seem to reflect the statement by the great John Adams, that "we are a nation of laws, and not of men."

Yet, in the face of all the blatant suspicion that Barack Obama has brought to bear on the legitimacy of his election as President, by the million-plus dollars he has spent in legal fees since October 2008 to oppose public disclosure of a 12 dollar certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and copies of his other professional and educational records, I wonder if Judge Carter is going to end up ultimately thinking politically, instead of legally. I am referring to the state of mind displayed, for example, by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, when she dismissed the federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco Attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victim's families, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush administration, on a basis of sovereign immunity instead of a lack of credible evidence. From what I have discovered factually concerning Dr. Hilton's lawsuit, he had, and still has, some very damning evidence in his possession showing that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military, orchestrated what occurred on 9/11; and the only proper forum for presenting such evidence is in a court of law, where a preponderance of such evidence will vindicate, in a jury trial, the petition of the plaintiff, a forum which was denied Dr. Hilton and his clients.

While it is a truth that a standing U.S. President cannot be sued in federal court over what is deemed to be the ordinary legal, and just, processes for the enforcement of federal law, substantial evidence of criminal acts committed deliberately by the President or his agents, under color of executive authority, is certainly actionable. This would be true even if the impeachment process has not been initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives due to innocent ignorance, or as a result of the placating machinery of corrupt political manipulation. In other words, Machiavellian political maneuvering in Congress should not be permitted to displace, or hamper, proper judicial review, that equity, justice, and, if need be, punishment are properly dispensed.

The exact opposite of this is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, when, supposedly, honorable judges, who had assumed their duties prior to Adolf Hitler's assumption of power, allowed themselves to become servants of the evil Nazi Party, in order to keep their jobs. There are quite a few historical examples of lawsuits that were brought by law-abiding German men and women, between 1936 and 1942, against Adolf Hitler and his thugs, which were quickly dismissed on a basis of Hitler's sovereign, all powerful, immunity. Currently, if it can be proven in a court of law that Barack H. Obama knew, at the time he declared himself a presidential candidate, that he was not born in the United States, that he has deliberately misrepresented himself as a natural born citizen, and that he has spent over a million dollars perpetuating a lie to the American people, a charge of criminal fraud would be the only appropriate action to be brought against the man.

Perhaps Judge Illston has called Judge Carter to express her dismay over his willingness to question Obama's eligibility to be President; or maybe she is so politically oriented, and biased, toward Republican neo-conservatism that she would be more than happy to see Obama discredited and forced to vacate the Oval Office. In reality, it is difficult to know where the allegiances of most federal judges really lie, for after they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to their offices for life tenure, they can do essentially whatever they want, for or against the U.S. Constitution, and if they are not impeached, do it with total impunity; for impeachment, in reality, is not a legal process, but one thoroughly political. I recall that a high percentage of the nation's electorate endorsed the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1958, but nothing ever came of it in the U.S. House of Representatives; and during the last 214 years, you can count on one hand the number of federal judges and justices who have formally been impeached, and on four fingers the number who have been convicted and removed from office.

From what I know about Judge David O. Carter, he seems to be a stand-up individual and one not likely pressured into handing down a decision determined by the effect of political influence. While neither Republican nor Democrat, I only hope that political party affiliation has had no bearing on the decision of Carter to proceed in his court toward a proper examination of the evidence. Nonetheless, only time will tell what type of federal judge Carter actually is. If suddenly the case, Keyes v. Obama, is dismissed, and disappears under a ruling of sovereign immunity, or on a less than cogent basis of the political forces exerted against Carter, the true colors and allegiance of a federal judge will be clearly revealed.