Let me re-phrase...to MANY who are not politically aware it may sound like a whacked out idea :wink: You can come to Texas anytime!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Printable View
Let me re-phrase...to MANY who are not politically aware it may sound like a whacked out idea :wink: You can come to Texas anytime!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
I am burning mad too. I can stand to look at Obama anymore. If I see him I turn the channel. This is NOT our president. As far as I am concerned, Obama, his wife Michelle and their 2 kids are imposters residing in America's White House pretending to be the First Family. And they are getting away with the biggest lie ever pulled on an entire country.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
I wrote my senator yesterday telling her that I was concerned about the direction Obama is taking this country. I also demanded to know who vetted Obama and why he hasnt submitted any proof of being eligible to be president even though he has spent 1.7 million not to reveal any information. Not in those words exactly but something close. And I will keep writing her every few days until she stops sending me form letters and answers my questions herself. Maybe if more people wrote their reps we can find out SOMETHING.
PatriotPast wroteThe leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
Rockfish, this is the first I've heard of this. Can you provide the source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockfish
Here's one source:Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
http://www.military.com/news/article/ar ... ESRC=eb.nl
Note that there are 530 comments from the military on this one. It's a hot topic.
The army has always prided itself in loosing the individuality of the single members to form a cohesive fighting machine. This case-by-case basis is not only discriminatory to those who are not allowed to break the norm, but endangers the cohesiveness that is needed in order to save and protect lives in battle. PC has NO PLACE in the military.Quote:
nstead, the Army's decision follows a long-standing practice of deciding such requests on a case-by-case basis, the letter said. Farrisee said the Army had weighed Kalsi's request against factors such as "unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health."
Before I would criticize Judge Carter, I would like to know what pressure the mob or the Nation of Is|am brought to bear upon his wife and children and grandchildren. I wouldn't like to call out a Marine for cowardice in the line of duty - supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would first have to know for certain all the threats, etc., the varied forces of evil made to intimidate and coerce him into
1) twisting or misstating the plaintiffs' complaints, and
2) betraying We the People over technicalities.
There has obviously been intimidation and coercion which obstructed justice. How can that be brought to light and made public? Is it necessary that the intimidated and coerced person testify, even if that would trouble his own house and family? Can anyone besides Judge Carter make a case that justice has been subverted by intimidation, coercion, blackmail, or some other specific criminal skulduggery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
WWPD? (What Would Patton Do?)
I try to take comfort in the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Mat 10:26-27 (NIV) "There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops."
Mark 4:22 (Jer) "For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light."
Interesting, and a good sign, to see that one of our Republican Senators from Maine has started to object to Obama's use of Czars.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... the-czars/
I had accused both Collins and Snowe of being RINOs, and it would seem there may be hope for Collins. Thank God for the recent Tea Parties and voter rebellion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Just brainstorming here, or maybe brainfogging, as I don't know where this train of thought will arrive... so don't ask me where I'm going with this. It should apply to something else besides the intimidation of Judge Carter. Maybe this unethical idea will lead to an ethical plan of action. To catch a crook may require "to think like a crook."
Even if a judge (not Judge Carter, specifically) were to adamantly oppose any local magistrate granting a warrant (and the judge would, if there were intimidation or coercion or nationwide deception), might the following apply to evidence gained as the result of a "misinformed" law enforcement officer's "Good Faith" belief that such a warrant exists?
__________________________________________________ _________
How Far Does Police "Good Faith" Go? The Supreme Court Creates Another Exception to The Exclusionary Rule
By SHERRY F. COLB
Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Herring. Herring addressed the question whether police officers may rely in "good faith" on erroneous information (inaccurately alleging the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant against a suspect) without compromising the resulting evidence, when the source of the error is another law enforcement agency.
The Court held that the answer is yes, provided the error is not sufficiently deliberate and culpable to justify suppression of the evidence. In this column, I will examine the question and conclude that the Court erred in further extending the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence.
What "Good Faith" Means in Fourth Amendment Law
The first thing to note about good faith in the Fourth Amendment context is that, despite the connotations of the phrase in everyday life, it has nothing to do with a police officer's subjective motives or intentions. The Supreme Court has instead used the phrase to refer to the objective reasonableness of a police officer's belief in the validity or existence of a warrant that is, in fact, invalid or nonexistent.
The second important fact about the "good faith exception" is that it is not an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that all searches and seizures be "reasonable." It is, instead, an exception to the rule that says that when police violate the Fourth Amendment, the resulting evidence is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the victim of that unlawful search or seizure. Accordingly, the only time a "good faith" exception becomes necessary is when police have already violated the Fourth Amendment but a prosecutor still hopes to offer the evidence resulting from that violation in criminal court against the victim of the violation.
These two points are significant because they demonstrate why "good faith" is a necessary consideration only when police rely on a warrant (or similar independent legal authorization) as a basis for a search or seizure.
.
.
.
When police violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, with or without a warrant, the ordinary consequence is that a judge suppresses any evidence unearthed as a result of the violation. This means that the jury will not be able to consider tainted evidence in assessing the guilt or innocence of the defendant who experienced the Fourth Amendment violation.
Evidence resulting from unconstitutional conduct is not, however, always suppressed. The Supreme Court has indicated that unlike the Fourth Amendment itself, the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally-compelled but is merely an instrument for motivating conduct in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court has applied the exclusionary rule selectively to those contexts in which its deterrent value will be greatest.
One exception to the exclusionary rule first emerged in United States v. Leon. The Supreme Court there held that if a police officer relied in objective "good faith" on a warrant that turned out to be invalid, then the evidence obtained would be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial – despite the presumed invalidity of the warrant. The Court explained that because the exclusionary rule serves to deter police misconduct (by suppressing the fruits of that misconduct), it would make little sense to suppress evidence resulting from a magistrate's error in issuing a warrant. The magistrate is specifically not an arm of law enforcement, and is therefore: (1) not the target of the exclusionary rule's deterrent objective; (2) not likely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment (and therefore not in need of deterrence); and (3) not responsive to the suppression of evidence, given the magistrate's lack of a stake in the outcome of an eventual criminal prosecution.
In Arizona v. Evans, the Court extended the good faith exception to a case in which there actually was no warrant, but the Office of the Clerk of Court had made an error in its record-keeping and reported that such a warrant for the suspect's arrest was outstanding. A police officer, relying on the erroneous record, carried out an arrest, and the issue of suppression arose. The Court held that despite the absence of a warrant, the evidence found as a result of the arrest would not be excluded at the suspect's criminal trial. Because the police officer had relied in objective good faith on the erroneous record, the Court held, it would be inappropriate to apply the exclusionary rule.
The Court reasoned that the party that had erred in this case, the Clerk of Court, was part of the judiciary and therefore – like the magistrate – not subject to the temptation to subvert the Fourth Amendment. Further, it noted that the exclusionary rule was never meant to regulate courts' conduct. And finally, it pointed out that court employees would have no stake in the outcome of criminal trials and therefore would not be deterred by the suppression of evidence.
The exclusionary rule, in other words, is meant only for – and effective only against – the police. If police are acting in reasonable reliance on independent, non-police, government actors, the Court determined, suppression would impose a high cost without providing much of a countervailing benefit...
Ya know, ya kinda gotta wonder about the idiot who suppsedly went crazy regarding the shootings at Ft. Hood. For too long, the security of our nation has been in the shadows. How could a possible terrorist infiltrate our military? Says a lot about the status quo, aye?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockfish
If the idiot is a terrorist, they'll never tell us..so we have to assume to a point..if this is the way the terrorists are going to infiltrate, live and then be set on their mission, we all have our workplaces to fear. Imgine, they plant an H1B here working at say, a bank. Years later afterwards, the plant is givin a call and is told what to do and where..so this bank worker goes on his mission to kill as many infidels as possible. The tradgety at Ft. Hood could be repeated.
I heard on the Sean Hannity radio show that this guy was over in the middle east and stated that islamists, most by far. all want the terrorists dead. What I'm wondering is if that is true, then the islamists in this country sure aren't making that perfectly clear..but on the other hand, you only hear about the violence and not the peaceful protests.
Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal
By: Devvy
November 5, 2009
Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October 29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge David Carter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build each time one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visit from the Secret Service.
I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes to understand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us. This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed before Obama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22, Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009 at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).
From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course, this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in on January 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest.
From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant) that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one must to understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January 26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss.
If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC, she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery and that Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30 days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied people to a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast?
All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides. In this particular post, John Charlton maintains that early discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:
Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss
"This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.
"The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time."
The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge: Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.
I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below; see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of my readers knows the link they can send it along.
If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009. When I mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning on page 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in the public domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See the transcript of the hearing, (page 21) where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "...a vehicle and an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to get the defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 that he doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerning the merits."
Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty of the Quo Warranto:
§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty" as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)
In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes this statement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2).
Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can read it here.
At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case was dismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be taken away.
This is Judge Carter's ruling on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. The issue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and that it must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. Judge Carter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501. Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would be reversed on appeal filed by the defendants.
Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29. In her own defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 in Orly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims.
Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (social security numbers). See this transcript, page 8. Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago on her web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separated them. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by her investigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least see if the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs, due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.
Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham (his deceased mother)
Michelle Obama
I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The same applies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they are all for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:
"I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent."
While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don't know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.
Following Judge Carter's dismissal of the case, both Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, attorneys who represent the all the plaintiffs, indicated they will be filing an appeal. While I want Obama removed from office as badly as millions of others, I believe an appeal will meet the same fate. You might disagree. However, after watching dozens of cases get dismissed on standing issues, I am convinced, besides impeachment (of a lawfully serving president), a Quo Warranto is the legal instrument to pursue. While I have tried to find an individual who might qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) as I discussed in a previous column, my efforts have not been successful to date.
Orly's plaintiff's have the option of filing new FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act request).
Orly has the option of pursuing the Quo Warranto with the District Court in Washington, DC. At this time, I do not know if she intends on doing so, but that statute was written specifically to remove a usurper. Rather than wait around for an appeal, why not pursue a legal process that is available? Of course, you could file an appeal and a Quo Warranto complaint at the same time if you want.
Are there any other options available besides those above? Yes, and Dr. Edwin Vieira covered it in a column last year:
"Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standingâ€
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/barnett_v ... 10509.html
Devvy, as usual, you are right on target. As Leo Donofrio has been saying for quite some time, quo warranto in D.C. is the way to go, and he is credentialed in the District to do it. But LD is waiting for a client or clients who will make the case for him, a notable client with obvious standing who cannot rightly be denied on technicalities. He also needs donations, which have all been going Orly Taitz's way lately. Neither does he have her passionate motivation to singlehandedly (and pro bono) keep the United States of America from becoming the Totalitarian Socialist States of America.
I suggested to Dr. Taitz that she hire LD - who won't work with her, but who may work for her, given a free hand to do things his way - and feed him clients, with donations attached. If not LD, then maybe Mario Apuzzo could be our U.S. champion.
But don't be so critical of the unstoppable Orly Taitz. She has been misquoted, taunted, unjustly sanctioned and fined $20,000 for filing a legitimate, non-frivolous case, and abused atrociously in the courts of more judges than District Judges Land and Carter. The vilification is without merit, and it comes not so much from the judges themselves as from the Perkins Coie lawyers representing the (Chicago Machine/Mafia/Mob, Is|amist, globalist, Marxist/Maoist/communist/socialist/anarchist, abortion-profiteering/pornography-peddling/homosexuality-flouting/dope-legalizing, anti-American/anti-Christian/anti-Israel, illegal alien supporting/open borders lobbying/amnesty pushing, Democratic National Committee, with the attendant hired hitmen) criminal cabal.
Specifically, don't blame her for filing eligibility cases outside of D.C.. She is trying to get evidence officially discovered in any federal court she can, in order to bring the facts to light before any judge who still has the authority to do something and the courage to stand against the regime.
Dr. Taitz was filing quo warranto for Barnett v. Obama in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with precedent: QW for federal office in D.C. has been allowed in California in the past because of the remoteness of the District of Columbia from the plaintiffs, which made it a hardship for them, but not for the local U.S. Attorneys representing the defendant, who did not need to be present. Dr. Taitz already filed a related quo warranto suit in D.C., which was scoffed out of court. Been there, done that, got the tar and feathers to prove it. Mario Apuzzo's QW suit in the District met the same fate. Dr. Taitz discusses her QW experience, as hindered by US AG Eric Holder, at length here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Carter
Reminds me of Cook et al v. Goode et al in Columbus, GA. Dr. Taitz related the decision of legal counsel for Adm. Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the military cannot investigate and verify the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, because he is a civilian and not subject to the UCMJ. Minutes later, U.S. District Judge Clay Land agreed with the Army attorney, that an Article 138 for Redress of Grievances is the proper procedure for verifying legitimacy in this and every other case which questions a military chain of command. "La la la la la - we don't hear you! La la la la la..." I was there. Heard it myself. Useful idiots, stuck on stupid.
That is true, Mr. Donofrio. But money is tight now, courtroom resources are limited, and time is of the essence. When the game isn't going your way, you have to cut your losses. You have to count the investment necessary to proceed and the possible return here and now, weigh it against the ROI if you should use your funds another day in a more copacetic environment, calculate the respective probabilities and make your final decision about whether to throw good money after bad or to count it a loss and start over from scratch, and then act, knowing that if you lose, the kibitzers will have known all along what you should have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Donofrio
When you're in enemy territory, in a crooked card game that is widely known to be rigged against you, you also have to be cautious about when to play your hand. You gotta know when to hold back; you gotta know when to fold. You also have to know who is packing heat and where are the exits, in case you win. The important thing is to stay alive and be able to come back another day and win your money back.
You may (or may not) know what cards Dr. Taitz was holding, but you couldn't measure the ebb and flow in the courtroom or see the white of the judge's eyes.
[quote="Quoting District Judge Carter's opinion in Barnett v. Obama, Leo Donofrio"][size=117]C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must [Must? It ain't necessarily so! The correct operative verb is "may"] be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.â€
Interestingly enough, BHO has told the world to stay away from Michelle Obama, and, in general, the world has stayed away from her. While reading Airborne's copy of Devvy's article and the original on Devvy's site, I came across a link to address search results for Michelle Obama (apparently not including her maiden name Michelle LaVaughn Robinson), and it tweaked my curiosity a bit.
http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Michelle_addresses.pdf
I acknowledge that Michelle is NOT POTUS, but she has injected her opinions into the political realm, and so I'm a bit curious about the address list. The list does not verify that a specific address is for THE Michelle Obama, and there are no dates listed (which I would have liked to have seen).
Is this something that would be interesting to investigate further?
[Devvy Kidd's reply to the above email.]
1. "Don't be so critical of Dr. Taitz."
I have been one of her staunch supporters over the past year. If you're referring to my last column, I wasn't critical of Orly, but the screw up in the original service is what caused the case to drag on forever.
That isn't being critical, it is simply a legal fact. The defendants weren't served for months instead of a few days.
2. No. Orly did not file a Quo Warranto in DC. In her letter to Holder on March 1, 2009, she asked Holder to recuse himself, a special prosecutor be appointed and so forth.
[Here is an account of Orly Taitz's attempt to initiate a quo warranto in D.C. on March 1, 2009.
It was basically ignored.]
If there is a QW by her, where is the complaint and when was it submitted to the District Court in Washington, DC? To my knowledge, there is no complaint under a QW filed by Orly's clients.
3. Holder redefines the word corrupt and he won't do anything as I have pointed out in many columns. She doesn't need him. Under the statute, if the AG or US Attorney fail to act, an 'interested person' can then petition the court. The problem is the definition of interested person under Newman. That is the tough part.
[Here is a reference about Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell (1915) in the U.S. Supreme Court.]
It's not about money. Filing the complaint is a couple hundred bux. The complainer might have to post a bond, but a percentage can get it done, maybe $1500. Then we wait and see what the 3-judge panel decides. If writ is granted by the court (I believe that is the proper term), then the government takes over and it goes to trial. Neat, clean and it is the proper legal instrument to use.
4. I am aware of the friction between Leo and Orly. That is for them to work out. I will not get in between them. I try only to bring the facts to people in my columns and encourage them to read, learn and be an activist to stop the destruction of this republic.
[Here is Leo Donofrio's exhaustive, famed, and definitive research on quo warranto (part 1 of 3).]
5. Mario Apuzzo is a fine man, highly intelligent and a great legal advocate. I read this appeal in Kerchner. I've also interviewed Charles Kerchner and he is a passionate and dedicated American.
[Here is Mario Apuzzo's Oct. 29th account of Kerchner v. Obama & Congress.]
The statute (QW) must be tested and Orly has a couple of clients who might - IF the complaint is done right - qualify under Newman. Not military or state legisltors, but Keyes and other candidates. But, like I said, the complaint has to be worded just so or it will get kicked down.
In the meantime, this mess drags on and on and on.
[And nitpicking judges (under coercion) aren't expediting things a bit.
They strain at typographical gnats and swallow an Is|amist camel from a globalist goblet.]
Devvy
http://www.devvy.com/images/bfg.gif
[The matador keeps the American people focused on sports, politics, and Iraq, while the NWO takes over.]
Eligibility News from WorldNetDaily; Nov. 7, 2009
This theory of Dick Sine and an unnamed expert has one small problem: this specific Post Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9...eservicefo.jpg
Waikiki Station in Honolulu, Hawaii, is hardly some off-the-beaten-path, hole-in-the-wall outpost in the west Texas desert.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9...veunit75ho.jpg
2330 Kalakaua Ave. is on the main drag in Waikiki Beach, which, if not as trendy as Malibu, certainly ranks close to it.
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/211...vehonolulu.jpg
The Kalakaua Post Office is less than two blocks from the ocean at Waikiki Beach, and only a block or so from the Sheraton Royal Hawaiian. This is not some cobwebbed, tin-roofed shack on a remote Polynesian atoll that time forgot after V-J Day, Aug. 15, 1945. In 1981, Waikiki Postal Station would have been a showcase for all the latest and shiniest mail technology. Waikiki was no place for an obsolete USPO hand stamp to linger in use for ten years after the U.S. Postal Service conversion.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9...eservicefo.jpg
Take another, closer look at the year on the USPO stamp; it is altered or forged.
It appears that an "8" and a "0" from other documents were (sloppily) trimmed and joined to create "08", rotated 180°, and pasted over the year field, overwriting what was originally there, which was probably "1970" or an earlier year. If the font of the old "19" did not match that of the new "80", that may explain why the original "19" was removed.
- The "19" is missing, which indicates that the first two digits of the year were Photoshopped out.
The "8" is chopped off at the top, unlike any real hand stamp or embosser.
If the "8" had not been chopped, it would have nearly intruded into the date field, the "29".
Unlike the numbers on a genuine hand stamp, this "8" and this "0" originally were not the same height.
The "8" had to be cropped to match the height of the "0".
The "8" is upside down (the top circle is larger than the bottom circle).
The registration form does not have a "II" after Barack Obama's name, which would have invalidated it, because it would amount to a registration of his father. For the form to be legal, he had to register with his full legal name, Barack Hussein Obama II. Without the "II", there is confusion about who was registering: the father or the son. But that wouldn't have stopped the registration from being filed, so, never mind.
There are numerous unresolved discrepancies in the Barack Obama Selective Service registration posted at DebbieSchlussel.com.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily
The most glaring to me is the difference between the Document Locator Number on this registration card
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/218...eservicere.jpg
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9141/...eservicedl.jpg
and the DLN above, on file at the Selective Service System’s Data Management System in Chicago.
That inconsistency of the two records indicates that the record on file in the system in Chicago may have been "injected" into the database by someone in the system in Chicago, in cooperation with the Chicago Machine.
If only Quarles Harris could have testified about the Barack Obama passport file tampering...
There are other deal-breakers besides the "Feb. '80" printed on the form, which Mr. Flavahan claimed is clearly visible on the microfilm. Mr. Flavahan then failed to reckon with the fact that government records show that the Selective Service Agency canceled its previous order for "Feb. '80" SSS Form 1's, so that no such forms were printed in February of 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAVie ... -3240-001#
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/Downlo ... tID=177647
Although the experts WND consulted explained away some of the other flaky-looking items on the card, the main ones are still problematic: the "80" on the "USPO" stamp, the irregular and inconsistent Document Locator Number on the registration card, and the "Feb. '80" on the card when apparently no "Feb. '80" version of SSS Form 1 was printed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily
Miss Schlussel's research deserves better than a whitewash. Unless, of course, the Obama Enforcement Team has also gotten to WND, along with Judge David Carter and the other 30 or so judges.
Click here to read the rest of the story at WorldNetDaily.
Click here to read the original story by Debbie Schlussel.
The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues
By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Most Americans don’t realize we have elected a president whom we know very little about.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his record. This should concern all Americans.
A nation-wide network of researchers has sprung up to attempt to fill in the blanks, but at every opportunity Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to. The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?
The president who campaigned for a more “open governmentâ€
[quote]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/735/barry3rdgrade.jpg
“Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969â€
Look in the background of the picture. Does anyone else think it looks like kid's artwork of Christmas trees?
Yes, which would fit in with a Catholic schoolQuote:
Originally Posted by florgal
Back then, public and secular schools were much more tolerant of religious art and party themes in the schools than they have been recently. All that artwork suggests to me is that the school was not Muslim. And, there are MANY orientals in Hawaii, some of whom are quite tiny. I worked with a gal named Kanoi who was more the size and build of a girl than us Europeans at her age. I have known other Hawaiians, and most are of mixed blood. Samoans have a reputation for being huge, too, but there are exceptions.
The question of usurping the Constitution in favor of allowing anyone to become POTUS has been with us for a while, as the following Senate hearing excerpt from Barney Frank shows us. I think the progressives and members of the shadow government figured in 2004-2008 'screw it - let's just do it and see what happens.'
Barney Frank mentions 'discrimination' as though it was a bad thing. Sorry, Barney, the requirements to be POTUS ARE discriminatory, and for GOOD reasons.
He also says people accuse him of 'amending the Constitution.' Not so. We're accusing him and the rest of the Democratic controlled Congress of ignoring and violating the Constitution. Big difference - amending is lawful; usurping is unlawful.
Stupid, malicious, power hungry socialists... grumble... grumble...
I'll wager there is a long trail of public speeches, private conversations, and meeting notes that would provide an extensive conspiracy trail to overthrow our Constitution. Good fodder for another historical book on the shadow government's efforts to ruin our national sovereignty.
If you haven't read Prof. Steven Yates 25-page article yet, this might be a good time to do so.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21992009/Stev ... nal-Errors
Books like 'Who will tell the People' by William Greider, 'The Late Great USA' by Jerome Corsi, and 'Rule by Secrecy' by Jim Marrs will add to your depth of knowledge on the attacks against our sovereignty.
=================
MAXIMIZING VOTER CHOICE: OPENING THE PRESIDENCY TO NATURALIZED AMERICANS HEARING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
OCTOBER 5, 2004
Serial No. J–108–98
(…)
Chairman HATCH. Thank you. I sure appreciate having you here. Representative Frank, we are honored to have you here, and we look forward to hearing your always lucid comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Representative FRANK. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the way you framed this as increasing the choice for voters. Obviously, there is an element here of fairness to individuals. My colleague from Arkansas has pointed that out. And I was first asked to do this — I did this a few years ago. I filed one version. I actually had a hearing when Representative Kennedy from Florida was the Chair of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Four or five years ago we had a hearing. And it was brought to my attention by an immigrant, who is an American citizen, who has been active in politics in the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and he was troubled, as I was, by the invidious discrimination of it. It basically says to people who have chosen to come to America in many cases, or who have been brought here, who have gone through the process of citizenship, have been very loyal, very law-abiding citizens, that they are somehow flawed.
The notion that people who come here and become naturalized are any less entitled to be here and to exercise privileges and rights and responsibilities than anybody else is offensive. And for that reason alone, we ought to get rid of it. Beyond that, though, there is a fundamental principle here, and it is the one you touch on with your phrasing of this. I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish.
Now, people say, well, you are amending the Constitution. The fact is that in 1789, the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed. Clearly, in terms of world history, the people who came to the American Constitutional Convention, they went for the first time to self-governance, but they did not go all the way. They had a Senate which was indirectly elected, a House directly elected, a President that was not supposed to be even indirectly elected. Remember, the original notion of the Electoral College was they would vote for a lot of smart guys, and the smart guys would sit around and decide who should be President. Remember, in the Electoral College, you did not pick President or Vice President. You just voted for President, and whoever got the most votes was the President, and whoever got the second most votes was the Vice President.
We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction. Unfortunately, the evolution has not yet reached a point where we got rid of that foolish Electoral College, but that is something for a later day. But we do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them: We don’t trust you. You could get fooled. I mean, they might — some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person mole him into the United States, or her, and get that person citizenship, and then years later have that person get elected President, and you will be too dumb to notice. I don’t think that is accurate, and I don’t think that ought to be the governing principle. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as President of the United States someone they wish.
I understand the prudential argument about some time limitation. I originally said 20 years. Mr. Snyder said 35. The fewer the better, as far as I am concerned. I will be honest with you. If you look at the principle of it, in my view an hour and a half is probably about enough time, because I trust the voters. This is up to them. Obviously, for practical reasons it will have to be a little bit longer.
But that is the issue. Should we tell the American people that we do not trust them to decide that someone — and, remember, nobody parachutes into the Presidency.
Chairman HATCH. That is a tough process.
Representative FRANK. Yes, it is hard work, as we have learned. I understand that. I heard that last week, that it is very hard work to be President.
[Laughter]
Representative FRANK. In fact, I understand they do not play ‘‘Hail to the Chief’’ anymore at the White House. They play ‘‘A Hard Day’s Night.’’ But nobody comes in without being subject to a lot of scrutiny. Presidential candidates are people who the public has a chance to see. They have been in lower offices. They have been in the private sector. They have been prominent. And I don’t think we should say that the American people don’t have the mental acuity and political judgment to look at someone who has been around for a while and who has achieved the kind of prominence that you have to achieve to be a Presidential candidate, but we cannot trust them to pick someone who happened to have been born in another country because of some flaw on their part. So I think this is really a further step in bringing democracy as it should truly be understood to the electoral process, and I am for it, and it would also have, I think, a very useful time. You know, this is a world in which our country has been, I think, unfairly accused of a lot of things; misinterpreted. I think for this country at this point to take a step towards enhancing the rights of immigrants, even in this particular way would be — this is a good time to do it.
Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. There is no question that you have made a lot of good points there, some of which have been too humorous, I think.
[Laughter]
Yeah, real funny...
[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][quote]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/735/barry3rdgrade.jpg
“Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969â€
Miss Tickly has suspended her blog (??) and Donofrio is now possessed of enough "denial of access" paperwork to file a lawsuit in Hawaii.
TerriK / Tickly seemed to be going off some kind of deep end, claiming Obama's real father might link him up to some native Hawaiian roots?
Mario has filed an appeal in Kerchner:
KERCHNER, et al. v OBAMA, et al. - APPEAL - 11/09/2009 - OPEN DOCUMENT - CIVIL CASE DOCKETED
http://tinyurl.com/yz59mvu
I wish them luck, but I just can't get excited anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Feeling the same way Cayla. Judge Carters shocking turnaround took the wind out of my sails. Evil, corruption and political correctness have descended upon this country like an oppressive fog. Let's hope that SOMEONE can lead us out of this before the citizens of this country reach their boiling point and take matters into their own hands. That time isn't far away as pointed out last night on O'Reilly. It was obvious even Bill was a little nervous about what measures the citizens of this country might take soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
TexasBorn, you don't need to wait for no stinkin leader. The leader is you... and me... and Cayla. We're all leaders in our families and in our communities. We lead from the front - there is no one in front of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
The job of leading is ours.
Witnesses: Obama birth lawyer told us to lie
November 11th, 2009, 5:00 am
· 134 Comments
· posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...rly-taitz2.jpg
A man claiming to have been Barack Obama’s homosexual lover and another claiming to have Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate say Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz asked them to lie in federal court. I’ll get to the details of their affidavits with the allegations momentarily.
Taitz planned to use the two as witnesses in her effort to prove Obama was born in Kenya and is not a legitimate president. However, the case was dismissed on Oct. 29 by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter without going to trial.
In his dismissal, Carter wrote, “the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.â€
From Dr. Taitz's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed with Judge David Carter on Nov. 9:
__________________________________________________
Orly Taitz, Esq., wrote:[/list:u:11kqyktx]__________________________________________________
- [list:11kqyktx]2. The plaintiffs request
the court to strike from the order unsupported and prejudicial verbiage.
Please see in the attachment Declaration of the undersigned attorney.
...
5. The court has included in the order mention of yet another ex-parte
communication with the judge, where two parties claimed that the
undersigned counsel has asked them to perjure themselves. Please see
the declaration, this was a slanderous, defamatory, prejudicial
allegation, and the undersigned had no opportunity to respond.
6. The undersigned believes that the letters came from Larry Sinclair
and Lucas Smith.
7. Larry Sinclair was asked to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to
the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In the
affidavit submitted to the Chicago police and in his book recently
published, Mr. Sinclair has stated that Mr. Donald Young has contacted
him repeatedly and stated that he had a homosexual relationship with
Mr. Barack Obama and that Mr. Young was found dead with multiple
gunshot wounds December 23, 2007 at the onset of 2008 Democratic
primary elections. Any allegations of the undersigned attorney asking
the witness to perjure himself are not only completely defamatory and
prejudicial, but are void of any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair’s
affidavit regarding Mr. Young’s homicide can be found filed with the
Chicago PD and in his book. A copy of the Affidavit of Larry Sinclair
and Coroners Certificate of Death of Donald Young is attached as an
Exhibit.
8. Lucas Smith was asked to authenticate Mr. Barack Obama’s birth
certificate from Kenya, which he previously tried to sell on e-bay and
which he authenticated under penalty of perjury both on video camera
and in writing. As such any allegations of suborning perjury are totally
defamatory and void of any sense or reason, since Mr. Smith made this
information public long before ever meeting the undersigned counsel.
Therefore any and all allegations of misconduct by the undersigned are
totally without merit, prejudicial and defamatory and need to be
stricken from the order.
If you don't object to my using so many electrons (no carbon oxidized in the process),
I'll reprint Dr. Taitz's entire motion here. She was lengthy, but passionate in her pursuit of justice.
Important! Motion for reconsideration in Barnett v Obama filed.
Hearing on Motion for reconsideration has been requested for November 20th.[size=117]
Motions 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Captain Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al
CASE CLOSED on 10/29/2009
(ANx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 11/9/2009 at 4:29 PM PST and filed on 11/9/2009
. . .
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and motion for reconsideration of October 29th order under Rule 59E and Rule 60.
1. A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case, Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins Coie was one of the firms representing the defendants in a prior legal action filed by the plaintiffs in this very case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn’t request any vital records and never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and all the other secretaries of states took his Declaration of a Candidate on its face value. As it is a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most of the opinions for the judges, the order to dismiss this case was de facto written or largely influenced by an attorney who until recently worked for a firm representing the defendant in this case, and who currently is working as a clerk for the presiding judge, as such most of the order is tainted by bias. This is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs. While Mr. Velamoor will surely claim that he didn’t work on Obama case before, his employment with Perkins Coie should’ve disqualified him, and indeed the order reads as if it is written by the defense counsel, highly biased against the plaintiffs, 99 percent of the order either misstates the facts or the pleadings or oral argument, it misstates the law and is full of personal attacks, de facto accusing decorated members of the military of being cowards; and this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the power of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel, to use innuendo, ex parte defamatory and slanderous statements to assassinate her character, to destroy her as a human being and endanger her law license, only because she is not only the only attorney brave enough to bring most of eligibility legal actions, to bring actions from plaintiffs with real standing, the only one to get any hearings, but she is also the only one to bring forward evidence from licensed investigators showing Mr. Obama committing multiple felonies, for which he should be serving lengthy prison term. The court erred in hiring Mr. Velamoor or in the alternative not recusing himself from hearing this case.
2. The plaintiffs request the court to strike from the order unsupported and prejudicial verbiage. Please see in the attachment Declaration of the undersigned attorney.
3. The court has stated in the pleadings that the undersigned attorney has encouraged her supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence his decision in the October 5 hearing. This is not true. The plaintiffs request this stricken from the final order.
4. During October 5 hearing your honor has stated that the undersigned attorney encouraged the supporters to attempt to influence the court’s decision. This never happened. When the undersigned attorney requested to respond, the court stated: “[N]o, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibilityâ€
Essence of the case is whether a self-admitted FACT of dual citizenship by a Presidential candidate during his campaign should be given a RULING OF LAW about whether it comports with nbc definition. Keeping things simple would have been a wonderful thing.
With a lot of inaccuracies thrown in for good measure, a "Guest columnist" was allowed to submit this and get it published in a fairly decent circulation paper near the California bay area.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion ... ck_check=1
Your Turn: Can't understand the complacency on Obama birth
By Mike Postich
Guest commentary
Posted: 11/07/2009 12:01:00 AM PST
To this day I remain baffled and somewhat dumbstruck by the complacency of the public, the mainstream media, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court for their willingness to dismiss challenges to President Barack Obama's (aka Barry Soetoro) natural born U.S. citizen status.
Yes, the election is over, and yes, I acknowledge that nothing likely will ever come of this, but it astounds me that we are in month nine of Obama, yet his eligibility to serve as president remains unresolved.
The majority of challenges to Obama's natural-born status revolve around the fact he has refused to release his original, long-form, vaulted birth certificate.
The only document he has made available is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. This abbreviated form does not indicate the hospital where Obama was born, nor does it include the name of the attending physician or midwife. There is no official signature of any kind verifying its accuracy.
The form also has a revision date of November 2001 and is computer generated, which clearly demonstrates that it is not the original document of his birth.
In addition, there is the oft-overlooked deposition from his paternal African grandmother who stated that she was present at his birth in (what is now) Kenya.
Obama has spent upward of $1.4 million in attorney fees ensuring that the original document of his birth never sees the light of day. Why do most of us not find this alarming and why haven't we, as a nation, demanded the truth? It doesn't end here. Among other documents Obama is withholding include his:
Noelani (Hawaii) Elementary school records.
Punahou (Indonesia) school records (fifth grade through high school, where he was registered as a Muslim and citizen of Indonesia).
Occidental College records.
Columbia University records.
Columbia thesis.
Harvard Law School records.
Harvard Law Review articles.
Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago.
Passport.
Medical records.
Complete files and schedules from his years as an Illinois state senator.
Illinois State Bar Association records.
Obama/Dunham marriage license.
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license.
His adoption records.
Any baptism records.
Perhaps Obama really was born in Hawaii. However, with this lengthy list of documents he refuses to make public, isn't anyone just a little skeptical? Just what information is Obama so desperately concealing? Americans deserve better. Some of that promised transparency please.
Postich is a Ph.D. research scientist and senior manager at a Bay Area biotech company. He is a resident of Concord.
Franciskus Assissi was one of the several Indonesian schools; Punahou is in Hawaii.
Bravo to Mike Postich, Ph.D., for getting this article published, even in the conservative Contra Costa Times. I can't imagine that they would have published the same under my byline.
And he gets it basically right, except for leaving out the indisputable disqualification by his Kenyan father, Barrack Obama, who in 1961 conferred to Barack Obama II his own status of a British Protected Subject. How can a British Protected Subject at birth, whose birth is governed by the laws of the British Empire, be a natural born U.S. citizen?
The grade school through high school record was confused, but that is not of the essence.
Did Barry Obama attend the Noelani Elementary school, perhaps for kindergarten, before he went to Indonesia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Postich, Ph.D.
According to Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and subject to your proofs to the contrary, Mr. Obama's education history is as follows:
Barry Soetoro (his name by adoption) attended Fransiskus Assisi Catholic elementary school in Jakarta for the first grade through part of the third grade. He received his first years of instruction in Is|am at the Catholic school.
Barry Soetoro attended SDN 1 Mentang (Mentang #1) public (government) school in Jakarta for part of the third grade and the fourth grade, which included further Is|amic instruction.
Barry Obama attended the Punahou School in Honolulu for the fifth through twelfth grades and graduated there. Punahou was probably the most expensive private school in the U.S.. During his school years in Honolulu, he was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis (by all reports a Communist Party USA member) and influenced by the writings of Malcolm X.
Barack Obama availed himself of the Occidental College - Columbia Univ. transfer program, attended Columbia from 1981 to 1983, and graduated there.
- Not according to Dr. Corsi but to the best of my knowledge,
officially Barry Soetoro, socially also known as Barack Obama, attended Occidental College in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981 on a foreign student scholarship. But that identification is "unproven and speculative," which by no means makes it not true... it is just one of those ambiguities that discovery will clear up.
After five years of community organizing, first in Harlem, and later in South Side Chicago with an organization related to Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude in 1991. He then returned to Chicago and taught Constitutional law at the Univ. of Chicago before entering Chicago politics.
Corrections? I'll pass them, along with your references, on to Dr. Corsi.
Anyone have a problem with this appeals court opinion?
ANKENY v GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA - APPEALS COURT OPINION - 11120903
http://tinyurl.com/ye74alr
On page 17, we see the comment:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizensâ€
November 12 does not seem a good day for the patriots.
BERG v OBAMA (Original Case) - JUDGMENT, Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be Affirmed
http://tinyurl.com/yjq5g27
[quote="HighlanderJuan"]On page 17, we see the comment [by Judge Brown]:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizensâ€
DENIES EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DROP ELIGIBILITY CASE
by John Charlton, The Post and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/yb2tg2f
(Nov. 12, 2009) — Today, the Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the case Philip J. Berg vs. Obama et al., specifically addressing several claims Attorney Berg had made, noting on pp. 5-65 that “In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this caseâ€
It looks as though our illegal POTUS wants to share American justice with others who are equally illegal and undeserving. I wonder if the 9-11ers will receive the equal protection and justice our patriot citizens have NOT enjoyed.
=================
A message to all members of Constitutional Emergency
Patriots,
The Obama Administration has announced they will bring the 911 killers that planned the event to New York to stand trial... a travesty at best.
Rather than bring them to trial under a military tribunal as war criminals at Gitmo, the Obama Administration will locate them in New York, on American soil which will give them all the rights and privileges under the US Constitution that Americans enjoy.... another travesty.......
I urge every single member of PFA to go to this web site http://www.thebravest.com/fdny.htm , read the letter, and sign your name as a supporter to stop the madness and insanity of the Obama Administration decision to bring war criminals to the United States.
The implications of bringing these 911 War Criminals to US soil is absolutely mind-boggling...it must be stopped.
Millions of Americans in the streets of New York City is the way to stop this...... when will the NEW YORK DEMONSTRATION FOR SANITY IN GOVERNMENT be held??
Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret
Visit Constitutional Emergency at: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com
Nixed CNN pact in 'Obama birther' flap
By MICHAEL SHAIN & DAVID K. LI
Last Updated: 11:33 AM, November 13, 2009
Posted: 4:23 AM, November 13, 2009
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/d ... z0Wl75sCqZ
Lou Dobbs walked away from more than $9 million when he quit CNN, ending a long-running clash that boiled over during a debate about President Obama's birth certificate, sources said yesterday.
Dobbs, who will be replaced on the network by veteran Washington political correspondent John King, abruptly announced his resignation on air Wednesday night and offered no clue about what he planned to do next.
But the beginning of the end really came in July, when CNN President Jonathan Klein told Dobbs' staff in a memo to drop so-called birther stories about conspiratorial doubts that Obama was US-born, sources told The Post.
"It seems this story is dead because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," read Klein's memo to employees of "Lou Dobbs Tonight."
Klein's move incensed Dobbs, who wasn't shy about telling off his boss.
"They have been talking pretty regularly since then," a source said. "And it's been pretty bad."
CNN had also long been asking Dobbs, known for his tough stance on immigration, to tone down his harsh rhetoric.
Last month, Dobbs' William Morris agent, CNN sources said, bluntly told Klein: "You're unhappy, he's unhappy. Let him go."
Dobbs told Klein in recent weeks he wanted to go "the opinion route," laying the final groundwork for his departure.
CNN had been unlikely to renew Dobbs' contract in 2011 anyway, sources said.
CNN is pushing hard to position itself as a middle-of-the-road news source, between left-leaning MSNBC and conservative Fox News Channel.
"Lou was polluting the CNN brand," said a TV insider.
The departure came at significant personal cost to Dobbs, who still had 1½ years left in his back-loaded, five-year, $35 million contract. Dobbs' final year would have brought him $9 million.
A Fox News Channel spokeswoman insisted her network wasn't interested in hiring the veteran.
CNN yesterday named King to take Dobbs' 7 p.m. slot, with a production starting in January.
Dobbs, on his syndicated radio show yesterday, thanked callers for their praise. When a caller from New Jersey urged him to run for the US Senate, Dobbs said: "All right, Josh. I'm taking notes."
Additional reporting by Reuven Fenton and Michael Starr
david.li@nypost.com
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/d ... z0Wl7DTySM