Thread: FEDERAL JUDGE SLAPS VOTERS IN FACE, ENERGIZES PATRIOTS

FEDERAL JUDGE SLAPS VOTERS IN FACE, ENERGIZES PATRIOTS

By: Devvy
October 27, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

Before I cover the current status and action plan regarding Berg v. Obama, et al, I want to address the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund which I wrote about in my last column. A couple of people in denial emailed that it just isn't so, I made it all up or distorted the facts. You may verify for yourself that the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund was incorporated in the State of Delaware on February 25, 2008. Click on this link. It takes you to the official page. On left side, click on entity search and go from there. This is what the official records show:

File Number 4509524

MCCAIN-PALIN COMPLIANCE FUND
Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------

This is not a statement of good standing

File Number: 4509524

Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 02/25/2008

(mm/dd/yyyy) Entity Name: MCCAIN-PALIN COMPLIANCE FUND

Entity Kind: Corporation Entity Type: Non-Profit or Religious

Residency: Domestic State: DE

Registered Agent Information: Name: THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY
Address: Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street
City: Wilmington County: New Castle State: DE Postal Code: 19801 Phone: (302) 658-7581

The registered agent information is defined here. Who or what is The Corporation Trust Company? Please bear with me as this gets a bit convoluted as you extract each thread. First, let me take you to a posting two days ago on Larry Sinclair's web site; he is the man who has accused Obama of cocaine use and a sexual encounter. Please note the statement Sinclair makes at that link questioning who actually wrote the Berg decision for Judge Surrick:

"The original faxed decision from the Clerk of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA to attorney Philip J Berg appears to have been faxed to Judge Surrick for him to sign. But if this is the case, the questions becomes who wrote the decision and faxed it for the Judges signature?...What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom. The ruling issued by Judge Surrick (?) was actually faxed to the Judge by someone (?) at 4:55 pm and the question is who? Did the Obama Attorney's or Surricks old Law Clerk, Christopher Seaman, (who just happens to be employed by Sidley-Austin, the former employer of Barack & Michelle Obama, et al.) write the ruling dismissing the Berg suit?"

What immediately jumped out at me is the name Sidley-Austin. You see, when I did a search for The Corporation Trust Company on Orange Street, Wilmington, DE., this came up (SEC is Security and Exchange Commission):

SEC Info - Ais Futures Fund IV LP - 10-12G - On 4/30/07 - EX-3.1

"... in the State of Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County. Delaware 19801. ..." [Read]

Proceeding to the SEC web site, what did I see?

2. Registered Office. The address of the registered office of the Partnership in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801.

3. Registered Agent. The name and address of the registered agent for service of proceae on the Partnership in the State of Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County. Delaware 19801.

And, who is the agent listed at the top? Sidley-Austin LLP/FA. AIS Futures Fund's registered agent is Sidley-Austin. The McCain-Palin Compliance fund incorporated in the State of Delaware on February 25, 2008, shows their registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company whose registered agent is Sidley-Austin tied through AIS. Whew. Obama met wife, Michelle, at Sidley-Austin where she was employed. This web site has the Obama, Ayers and Sidley-Austin, LLP mega diagram of affiliations.

McCain announces on August 29, 2008, after months of searching and all the hoopla over his short list for VP, Gov. Sarah Palin of the great State of Alaska is his final choice. The McCain-Palin Compliance Fund is incorporated on February 25, 2008, six months prior to that announcement. Obviously, McCain didn't call Palin on February 24, 2008, and ask her if she'd consider being his VP and file incorporation papers the next day. Talks had to have been underway for some time before the filing date. The registered agent of the newly formed corporation via the trust corporation for the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, is a law firm deeply involved with Democrats, their causes and Obama. Just one, big, happy coterie of players.

Federal judge slaps the face of voters; spits on the U.S. Constitution

Phil Berg's lawsuit to force production of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate is not a political game, it's a constitutional issue. The most cogent narrative, including excerpts from Judge Surrick's decision is found here. To say millions of us are outraged is putting it mildly. Enraged is more appropriate. If one reads the dishonorable Surrick's words, it becomes apparent this judge, if he is the one who actually wrote the decision, thinks we the people are too stupid to understand his outrageous remarks:

"…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election."

According to this bench warmer, a candidates INELIGIBILITY to run for office doesn't present an injury to voters! We just accept fraud as eligibility! "Theoretical constitutional harm" experienced by we the people doesn't change as the fraud passes from one phase of the election cycle to another! Surrick is lost in purple haze. Typical of these weenie federal judges, when they can't find the guts to do the right thing, they take the cheap way out and try to pass the buck to the other incompetents, Congress:

"So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint."

In other words, we the people are supposed to sit back and allow a candidate who doesn't meet constitutional requirements for eligibility go ahead, run, get elected via massive vote fraud and hope that down the line Congress might decide to pass some law giving we the people some say in OUR government and election process? Surrick's words must have given Arnold Schwarzenegger a nocturnal emission.

This is beyond outrageous. What Surrick, who by the way is a Clinton appointee, is saying is that Slobodan Thaci gets himself on the ballot in Texas for the House of Representatives by filling out a form and paying the fee. It's discovered that he's not 25, but 21, was born in Kosovo and has been a citizen less than seven years. Surrick says no one can challenge his ineligibility because it represents no harm to the voters! How about the supreme law of the land, Judge Surrick?

Surrick called Phil's lawsuit to get the truth frivolous. Only after Obama defaulted on the Requests for Admissions did Surrick rule against Phil. All of this could have been avoided if Obama had simply provided a real birth certificate instead of a copy off a laser printer. Since Obama steadfastly refuses to do so, how can anyone (except Obama drones) rationally believe he can prove his citizenship?

The dishonorable Judge Surrick made a very cowardly statement in his ruling: ""Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."

Obama vetted? There's a rich one. By who? Let's take the FBI files on Obama and his communist mentors; see here.

Obama vetted? How about his life long friendships and relationships with people like Rev. Jeramiah Wright, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, housing slum lord, Resko and Khalid al-Mansour?

Vetted by who, Judge Surrick? The DNC? Derail the election process by invalidating a candidate on constitutional grounds because millions of people were lied to about his legal status regarding eligibility? What a slap in the face to every American who believes in the supreme law of the land. Guess, what, Judge Surrick: You're damn straight we're going to get to the bottom of this and if it creates a constitutional crisis, so be it. Are we a nation of laws or lies? Obama is a nothing more than a Chicago thug in an expensive suit trying to pull a fast one on the American people and we are not going to stand for it.

There is something else very strange about the decision from Surrick and news coverage. Early Saturday morning, October 25, 2008, the Philadelphia Daily News carried the story: 'Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot'; see here. At 6:25 am, I sent out a link to a column by Daniel Downs, dated November 24, 2008, posted at 11:18 PM. Within an hour after I sent my email, that column was pulled. What did it say?

"After reviewing evidence presented by Attorney Philip Berg, US District Court Judge Honorable R. Barry Surrick has ruled that Barack Hussein Obama was not a "natural born" or "naturalized" citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States."

Surrick's office faxed Phil the decision at 4:55 PM on October 24, 2008. Yet, Downs' column is posted six hours later -- with the exact opposite of the decision faxed to Phil. While the original link page is now blank, if you look at the top where it says columnist, click on that, you will see Downs' daily columns. This is not some high school kid playing journalist. Downs' is an experienced columnist. The other odd thing is Downs believes Obama would make a great president. Why would this experienced journalist put out a column reporting a judicial decision which would take Obama out of the election if it were a lie? Where did Downs' get the decision he uses in his now pulled column? The column was cached and appears here.

Additionally, it appears the decision was faxed to Surrick from an outside source for his signature. After signing the decision, Surrick then faxes it to Phil. Here is the time line. Phil has suggested Surrick might have sent the fax from his home to his office so his office could then send it to Phil. There is an hour difference from the first fax and then Surrick's to Phil. Why the almost hour delay in sending on a Friday after normal business hours? These are some questions that beg answers for clarification.

As for the Andy Martin lawsuit in Hawaii, he has an update, October 25, 2008. Martin's emergency writ of mandamus was denied by the Supreme Court in Hawaii on October 22, 2008; see order here. The high court provides this in their decision: "Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures."

Please bear in mind that nothing in politics happens by accident. These dates are all important.

October 18, 2008, Martin announces he files a lawsuit to force the Governor and Hawaii Dept of Health to produce a real birth certificate for Obama.

October 21, 2008, Obama announces his grandma is so ill, he has to stop campaigning to go to Hawaii to see her. He does many more appearances while grandma languishes with a broken hip and then flies to Hawaii on the 23rd. Obama visits grandma a total of seven hours and leaves Hawaii the morning of October 25, 2008. When grandma was ailing earlier this year, Obama opted to head to St. Thomas, Virgin Islands for fun in the sun and sand instead of visiting her. Obama never visited his mother, a cultural Marxist and left-wing activist who at one time worked for the Ford Foundation, while she was dying of ovarian cancer; she died without seeing Obama again. Obama claims he didn't know how serious her condition was; his mother was already in the hospital when Obama made that statement. Ann Dunham died November 7, 1995. What was Obama doing at that time? He was busy building his political machine.

Obama knows on October 22, 2008, the Supreme Court in Hawaii hasn't out right ruled against Martin, they simply send him to the lower court. The next day Obama flies to Hawaii and when he's not visiting grandma, he is doing what from the time he arrives the 23rd until the morning of the 25th?

Judge Surrick (or a surrogate) issues his decision in Berg v Obama at 4:55 pm on October 24, 2008. Obama knows by the evening of the 24th, he has a temporary reprieve from Surrick, but Phil is going to appeal as this column goes to publication; see his press release here.

There are now lawsuits in eight states: "Seattle WA. 10/22/2008 — Lawsuits in eight states as of this writing– Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia. Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut, are seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Senator Barack Obama’s qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama."

What happens next? I spoke briefly with Phil via phone on Saturday. He said he would file a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit on Monday and then file a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court as time is of the essence.

What can you do? Copy the press release here. It pretty much sums up what's going on out there. FAX it to your Secretary of State, State Attorney General and county clerk with a short cover letter simply stating that until the issue of Obama's birth certificate is once and for all adjudicated by the courts, we the people demand no votes are counted for that candidate on November 4, 2008. This is a valid constitutional issue and you expect them to take it seriously. Any candidate on the ballot in any state has to be there legally. I am drafting a new letter today to fax to my state officials just as I outlined above. The only thing I need to add new is that Phil Berg is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court just in case your elected public servant fires back the lawsuit is dead. Phil's web site now has more than 71 MILLION hits. Let's get the word out: hammer on our state officials and stay on them until this is resolved.

(Notice: Bill Benson's Sixteenth Amendment lawsuit goes to oral arguments tomorrow. This is one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past century. The 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument in the government's case against William J. Benson, author of The Law That Never Was–The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax.

This oral argument is set for October 28th at 10:00 a.m. CDST in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. There will be a 3 judge panel and each side will be given 20 minutes to make their argument and supplement their legal briefs already submitted. Anyone can attend. As many as possible should attend. Courtroom decorum is expected. This is a great way to give your support to Bill Benson, a great patriot warrior and to one of the finest tax patriot attorneys in the country, Jeff Dickstein. If you can make it, mark your calendar. If you can't make it, please help with donations; click here and be sure to watch the short video.)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd407.htm

there are many links on this page; please go to the link above to view them

This is still a hot potato.

The writer is somewhat confusing. If I understand what is being said or hinted at, two rulings, completely opposite were released. This is leaving the reader to believe that for some reason there was a last minute change and the judge signed an order that was faxed at the last minute dismissing the case. Am I reading this correctly? Do you think the reason he kept putting off his "ruling" is that he had not received the fax yet?

I AM SOOOOOOOOO CONFUSED

Originally Posted by cayla99

The writer is somewhat confusing. If I understand what is being said or hinted at, two rulings, completely opposite were released. This is leaving the reader to believe that for some reason there was a last minute change and the judge signed an order that was faxed at the last minute dismissing the case. Am I reading this correctly? Do you think the reason he kept putting off his "ruling" is that he had not received the fax yet?

I AM SOOOOOOOOO CONFUSED

That's exactly what she's saying. That this veteran reporter....a huge Obama fan.....posted a column in a Philadelphia paper based upon a decision which he somehow had obtained and was the exact opposite of the one Berg was sent.

That column was pulled.

She's questioning where Downs, the journalist, got the decision he based his column on, where did it go, when did it change, etc.