- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Bloggers are buzzing about a law clerk who purportedly works in the same California court that’s hearing a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president – and his possible ties to a law firm that has defended Obama in other eligibility cases.
A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddharth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for federal Judge David Carter – who is hearing the eligibility case Barnett v. Obama, in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
As WND has reported, Federal Election Commission records for “Obama for America” show that the lobby organization has paid Perkins Coie exactly $1,666,397.01 since the 2008 election.
WND has also reported that Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro, threatening sanctions if he didn’t withdraw his appeal of the eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the issue already had been “twittered.” Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg’s eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges.
Attorney Orly Taitz, who is representing several dozen of the plaintiffs in the California case, posted an entry on her blog titled, “Let’s hope this Siddharth Velamoor does not represent a problem.”
Wikipedia editors responded by quickly removing the names of Carter’s clerks, claiming “Law clerk is under attack.”
Wikipedia editors discuss scrubbing page over ‘fears that some birther might go nuts’
In response to Taitz’s posting, one Wikipedia editor by the name of “Paul Pieniezny” indicated that he believed “dangerous people” may “go nuts” with the information.
He wrote, “I have decided to delete the entire chapter. There are dangerous people up there, with guns. We do not want any people threatened or killed. Please discuss if you think otherwise.”
Another editor, “Leuchars,” responded, “I don’t think deleting easily available information from wikipedia is a good response to fears that some birther might go nuts. Some people are already pointing to this deletion as evidence of a conspiracy to cover things up. No reason to add fuel to the fire.”
But “Pieniezny” countered, “They do not need much incitement to go nuts. And I suppose that since Orly’s demand to start discovery got the Bastogne answer from the DOJ, they probably do not like the word ‘nuts’. I do not really understand why clerks’ names should be put on the page of a judge who is dealing with a very controversial case (I mean the maffia [sic] one, not the Orly Taitz case which is not controversial at all) and of course with the Orly Taitz circus. Of course, any edit to this page is controversial among birthers, that is the very essence of a conspiracy theory.”
The court, Carter’s courtroom deputy and court reporters have not responded to WND’s messages asking for verification of Velamoor’s position with the court.
Oct. 19 document from Carter’s court lists a “Sid Velamoor” as a law clerk
However, WND located an Oct. 19 document from Carter’s court that listed a “Sid Velamoor” as a law clerk.
Law clerks often provide assistance to the court by conducting legal research, writing draft opinions, keeping records and performing other administrative duties.
As WND reported, Judge Carter recently issued a final schedule of deadlines for progress in the California lawsuit, leaving some of the president’s critics gleeful over the “confirmation” of a trial and others wondering exactly what the judge meant.
Carter’s order listed a motion-for-summary-judgment hearing Dec. 7 at 8:30 a.m., with a time frame to file the motion Nov. 16, and opposition required by Nov. 26. The final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.