Category Archives: Chief Justice

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

“Chairman [Lindsey] Graham, Ranking Member [Dianne] Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys. My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now.

I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.

A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed— requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/amy-coney-barrett-opening-statement-supreme-court-428635

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Jonathan Turley et al schooled on Kamala Harris NBC status by Citizen Wells commenter, Turley commenter and of course Wells, Harris not Natural Born Citizen

Jonathan Turley et al schooled on Kamala Harris NBC status by Citizen Wells commenter, Turley commenter and of course Wells, Harris not Natural Born Citizen

“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.”...Jonathan Turley commenter George

“The Natural Born Citizen requirement for the US Presidency should have been ruled on and clarified in 2008 by the SCOTUS. Marbury v Madison makes that clear. To not do so now would be treasonous.”…Citizen Wells

 

A decision was made at Citizen Wells in 2008 to go for quality over quantity in commenters. It has paid off.

The spam filters stay busy.

Longtime quality commenter Pete is a fine example.

He schools Jonathan Turley, et al on the qualifications to be POTUS as a Natural Born Citizen.

From Pete today.

“The issue for people like Turley, is that they are hung up on British Common Law and it’s consequences to the United States Criminal Justice system. Since most Americans are ignorant of their history and heritage, this is what you get.

Specifically, the US Supreme court needs to interpret the term “Natural Born Citizen”. The framers intent, that one could never be “King of England” and President of the United States, put the term into the requirements for POTUS, and the 12th Amendment added the requirement for VPOTUS. The did this to prevent ‘entanglements’. Please see letters from John Jay to George Washington, to understand that the Commander in Chief of the Military couldn’t have dual loyalties.

The poorly educated, or those that simply want a work around to the Constitution use English Common law reference for British Subjects to subvert the Constitution and the Republic. Yet these opinions have no explanation for why the War of 1812 was fought (over press ganging of US sailors who were born as British Subjects), and understanding that We the People ABSOLUTELY did not accept British Common law as it pertains to our citizens. However, the Founding Father’s clearly understood that they were born British Subjects, so that had to put an exemption into the Constitution, so that those born before 1790 didn’t have to be “Natural Born”.

So…..Where did the term Natural Born Citizen come from? Clearly it wasn’t British because 1) We didn’t accept British Common law on our citiizens. 2) British are born as Subjects, NOT CITIZENS, in that time and place. Therefore, we must look elsewhere to find what the founding fathers were reading to understand their intent. Herein lies the history of who were were allied with in 1790, and it wasn’t the British. Yes, we were most definitively allied with the French. Indeed, the answer lies here.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed

The answer is France, and a unique piece of critical thinking at the time. Vattel’s work on laws of nations.

However, claiming that it was Vattel that they turned to, without evidence, is making a story whole cloth. On the other hand, if there were proof that those individuals who conspired to create the Republic were aware of Vattel, read Vattel, then it becomes obvious that the Term “Natural Born Citizen” is derived from that work.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-library-washington/george-washingtons-library-book-returned-221-yrs-late-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520

“The missing book came to light when the New York Society Library was restoring its 1789-1792 charging ledger, which features the borrowing history of Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, George Clinton, and others.”

Lawyers lie, and History leaves NO DOUBT that they were reading and exchanging about Vattel’s Law of Nations. Natural Born Citizen, under Vattel, is and individual without divided loyalties at birth. That person, born of two citizen parents, on citizen soil, could claim no other country and could not be claimed by another. There was no conflict.

This story can only be understood under the geopolitical events of the time of the writing of the Constitution. We know the geopolitical events, we have the evidence of whose ideas they talked about and read, and we know why. Today’s Democrats and those Ignorant of the Constitution would destroy it and distort our history to bring their ‘new’ government. That political history is not in doubt now that we know the last POTUS used government itself to subvert the Republic as he spied on his political opponents.

In the words of our founding fathers “I hold these truths to be self evident”. The SCOTUS needs to make a decision, to take up the burden and decide upon the fate of the Republic by ‘determining’ what the term Natural Born Citizen meant.”

From astute commenter George at Jonathan Turley’s website commenting on

“Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president or vice president.

Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion,” Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.”

“The “case law” is the pudding – it is in the Jay/Washington letter which imposed a “STRONG CHECK” against candidates for president and command in chief as citizenship status – the strongest check, “natural born citizen,” being far stronger than “citizen,” the only formal and complete definition existing in the Law of Nations, 1758, which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,….” according to Ben Franklin.

“Natural Born Citizen”- Strong Check

“Citizen” – Weak Check
___________________

To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

From John Jay

New York 25 July 1787

Dear Sir

I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

which sailed Yesterday.

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

John Jay”

Read more:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/14/yes-kamala-harris-is-eligible-for-vice-president/comment-page-2/#comment-1990909

After multiple attempts to get a comment posted and approved, I replied to several existing comments.

One of numerous articles I have posted that explains the ruse:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/11/11/chuck-todd-is-not-stupid-todd-is-along-with-media-and-democrat-party-biased-and-colluding-zero-proof-of-obama-us-birth-chuck-todd-and-nbc-staff-attack-trump-for-insulting-president-birth-certi/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

Click to access Clerk2a.pdf

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From NBC News April 5, 2016.

“SCOTUS Denies Request from D.C. Madam’s Attorney to Release Info

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from a lawyer who once represented a woman known as the “DC Madam” to release records from her famous escort service.

Those records include such sensitive information as customer names, Social Security numbers and addresses— information the lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, has said could affect the 2016 presidential election. The so-called DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran a high-priced escort service in the Washington D.C.-area for a number of years before her eventual conviction. She died in 2008.

Sibley wanted the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order, in place since 2007, that bars him from releasing any information about her records.

“Time is of the essence,” Sibley wrote in his latest Supreme Court filing.”

Read more:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scotus-denies-request-dc-madam-s-attorney-release-info-n551121

 

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions about Obama birth certificates

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions
about Obama birth certificates

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.

Judge Parker wrote:

“(Case no. 1110665.) As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court’s order striking McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus: “McInnish
attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would
raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Obama that have been made
public.”

On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions
about President Obama’s qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on
notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.”

The McInnish V Chapman case should proceed to the US Supreme Court, the justices should rule and clarify the duties and roles of state election officials.
The poorly reasoned opinions of the consenting justices should be denigrated and the well reasoned, well written and constitutionally sound arguments of
Chief Justice Roy Moore should be upheld. This case, while highlighting eligibility deficiencies of Obama, focuses on the role of the AL Secretary of State,
and that is what the SCOTUS would focus on. The mootness aspect could also be addressed

Mootness could also be addressed by another case before the SCOTUS. Paige V State of Vermont. Central to this case is Obama’s natural born citizen status. If
this case is selected for full court review, we would expect a clarification of the definition of natural born citizen. This is mandatory as even many
constitutional scholars are divided on the definition.

We have in McInnish v Chapman, the most extensive and comprehensive delineation and definition of the duties of Alabama state election officials including
the Secretary of State. Many of us, including Citizen Wells, have addressed this adequately beginning in 2008. Though not rocket science, nor requiring a
legal degree to understand, it was beneficial to have a strong constitutional defender such as Chief Justice Moore to explain it with so much documentation.

To sum up the gist of Chief Justice Moore’s argument which is mine as well. Clearly the responsibility for presidential elections is that of the states up to
the certification of electoral college votes. The US Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. The states are given some leeway in
procedural matters. The state laws and procedures vary considerably. There is no law stating that all presidential candidates must be preemptively
investigated to insure being qualified. However, since only a qualified candidate can legally be elected, it is imperative that the states take all
appropriate measures. The states in general have failed miserably at this. Some states have explicit laws and procedures to remedy a non qualified candidate.
Some have provisions for challenges. New Hampshire requires a natural born citizen certification.

From Justice Bolin:

“I concur with this Court’s no-opinion affirmance of this case. However, I write specially because I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent
to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President
of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result;
however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

I read this with a certain amount of incredulity. After pondering it for a while I am wondering if this was intentional. A set up?

There are 2 simple steps that could have been and should have been taken. Immediately contact the AL Attorney General and request guidance. Get clarification
on the definition of natural born citizen and request a certified copy of the birth certificate. You know, one like I have a copy of, a copy of the original
certified by the governing office.

After comparing the ludicrous concuring opinions with the well reasoned, constitutionally sound opinion of Chief Justice Moore, one has to wonder if this was
a set up for the SCOTUS.

On the topic of mootness, I somewhat disagree with Chief Justice Moore as well others on remedies for removal of Obama if he is not qualified. Mootness only applies in the context of state duties since they did end with the electoral college certification. However, the clarification of state duties in AL and the other states is just as if not more important. Impeachment in the general since would apply but not in the presidential removal through congress. If Obama is not qualified he is not president. No ceremony or adulation by brainwashed school children effects that.

If Obama is not qualified, he should immediately be arrested and tried for treason.

Few are willing to state this, but it is the truth.

Of course with the Obama controlled USDOJ this would be tricky.

However, Eric Holder and others in the USDOJ were selected by Obama and perhaps they could be removed first.

Other states and state election officials should take notice. If Obama is proven to be ineligible, many of those officials have committed treason as well. Not to mention enablers like Nancy Pelosi, et al.

I and others contacted NC and other state election officials in 2008 as well as 2012 to warn them of probable Obama eligibility deficiencies. They were warned and have no excuse.

It is on the record now. From a state supreme court.

State election official duties.

Probable Obama eligibility deficiencies.

The results of the Arpaio Zullo investigation now take on more significance.

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

The Alabama Supreme Court has made a ruling on the Obama Eligibility case in McInnish V Chapman.

From initial reading there is a non affirmative ruling with significant dissent.

From Chief Justice Roy Moore’s dissenting conclusion.

“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to
the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under
the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to
mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted
the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen
requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in
future elections.

Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have
granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those
candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot
for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the
time this petition was filed and the object of the relief
requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a
President who has taken the oath of office is within the
breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of
the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the
electoral votes is a state function.

This matter is of great constitutional significance in
regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was
elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the
remedy of impeachment is available through the United States
Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode,
can pursue this remedy through their representatives in
Congress.

For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s
decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court
dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of
State.”

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

Representative Sue Myrick’s office must demand impeachment of John Roberts, Roberts swore in ineligible Obama, Duty to Constitution

Representative Sue Myrick’s office must demand impeachment of John Roberts, Roberts swore in ineligible Obama, Duty to Constitution

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

Reported on Citizen Wells on February 9, 2009.

“From Sue Myrick’s office.
Polk, Andy :Andy.Polk@mail.house.gov

“ohhh- I understand it correctly based on US Supreme Court cases interpreting
what “natural born citizen” Constitutionally means.  Had he not met the
definition, Chief Justice Roberts, the worlds leading Constitutional scholar,
would not have sworn him in because he would have violated his duty to uphold
the Constitution.  You can argue with me all you want on this issue, but I can
do nothing for you on this point.  The only thing you can do, if you feel so
strongly about Obama not being a citizen, is file a lawsuit in federal court.””

As reported, an email was sent to Sue Myrick’s office on February 5, 2009 and no reponse was received.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/representative-sue-myrick-united-states-congressman-nc-representative-andy-polk-aide-polk-obama-ineligible-us-constitution-congress-electoral-votes-north-carolina-constituents-the-why-init/

The following are facts:

  • The governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has found no record of a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.
  • Tim Adams, a elections clerk in Hawaii in 2008, has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.
  • Obama, for well over 2 years, has employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records.

Since Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has failed in his duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution by failing to interpret and clarify the natural born citizen clause and more seriously, swearing in Obama, who was clearly not eligibible to be president, he should be impeached. Andy Polk of Sue Myrick’s office stated “he would have violated his duty to uphold the Constitution. ” He did!

Representative Sue Myrick, are you going to do your sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution?

Sue Myrick contact info:

Washington Office
230 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1976
Fax: (202) 225-3389

Charlotte Office
6525 Morrison Blvd. Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28211
Phone: (704) 362-1060
Fax: (704) 367-0852

Gastonia Office
197 West Main Avenue
Gastonia, NC 28052
Phone: (704) 861-1976
Fax: (704) 864-2445

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

When I heard Glenn Beck insult millions of concerned Americans and military officers on his radio show, I thought that was one of the most insensitive, stupidest things I had ever heard. Is Eric Zorn related to Glenn Beck? Do they both have the stupid gene?

From Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune November 24, 2010.

“Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now”

“And since one must be a “natural-born citizen” to be president and   Barack Obama’s father was not, as everyone acknowledges,  a U.S. citizen, the whackjobs who have been unsuccessful in their “he was born in Kenya!” effort, are now hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will help in their cause to declare him ineligible to hold office.”

Read more:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/vattel.html

On the one hand, for a micro second, I want to congratulate Zorn for mentioning the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit being before the Supreme Court. But that feeling quickly evaporates when I digest the way he dismissed those questioning Obama as being “whackjobs.” He displays a total lack of understanding about Obama’s eligibility issues and the Kerchner case.

First of all, we don’t know where in the hell Obama was born, since he has avoided presenting a legitimate birth certificate. Secondly, Zorn has got some nerve calling a retired naval commander, LTC Terry Lakin, multiple generals and millions of concerned Americans “whackjobs.”

Eric Zorn, we have a constitutional crisis now, due to people like you in the media not doing your journalistic job.

Eric Zorn, call me. Get your facts straight before making an ass out of yourself.

Eric Zorn, why don’t you ask the question above?

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

From  Tim Bueler, early this morning, November 24, 2010.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 November 2010

CONTACT: Tim Bueler
media@timbueler.com
(530) 401-3285

WND EXCLUSIVE: U.S. SUPREME COURT CONFERS ON OBAMA ELIGIBILITY

Conducting interviews on this topic is the Washington, D.C staff writer for WND.com, Brian Fitzpatrick.

Is president a ‘natural-born citizen’ as Constitution requires?

By Brian Fitzpatrick
(c) 2010 WND.com

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the “death knell” for Obama’s legitimacy.

“Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it’s a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else,” Apuzzo told WND.

Apuzzo observed it is “undisputed fact” that Obama’s father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits “is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don’t know what that would show,” according to Apuzzo. “We might not even get to the question of defining ‘natural-born citizen.’ If he was not born in the U.S., he’d be undocumented, because he’s never been naturalized. We don’t even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that’s hearsay. We have not seen the root documents.”

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama’s presidency.

“If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office,” Berg told WND. “We would ask for a lift of Obama’s ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don’t spend that kind of money unless there’s something to hide, and I believe the reason he’s hiding this is because he was not born in the United States.”

“The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case,” Berg added. “If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office.”

“They’re taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens,” Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the “Vattel theory,” which asserts that the term “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, “The Law of Nations,” was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term “natural-born citizen” has never been altered.

“The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen” in “dicta,” or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1814 “Venus” case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel’s definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

“To me that’s false,” said Berg. “The 10th Amendment refers to ‘we the people.’ If the people can’t challenge the president’s constitutionality, that would be ridiculous.”

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

“They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody’s life, liberty and property in the process.

“They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen.”

Link to Article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073

Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh have all questioned Obama’s birth certificate, natural born citizen status and eligibility to be president. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated the following on his radio show:

“The imposter got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn’t. They clearly didn’t ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Well, because it happened here in the United States. We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”

Kerchner v Obama update, November 17, 2010, Mario Apuzzo Charles Kerchner radio interview, Dr. Kate show

Kerchner v Obama update, November 17, 2010, Mario Apuzzo Charles Kerchner radio interview, Dr. Kate show

From Charles Kerchner, plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama.

For Immediate Release – 17 November 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate – Wed, 17 Nov 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-will-be-on.html

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 17 Nov 2010, at 9:00 p.m. EST. The subject will be the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court including review of the four questions presented in the Petition. Two Justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, have been requested in the Petition to recuse themselves from this case in that they have a direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of this case, i.e., their very appointments to the court. We have also asked the Justices in our Petition to take judicial notice of the LTC Lakin court martial in process and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt General McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Recent activity in the case includes an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/11/18/revolution-radio-kerchner-obama-the-constitution

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate’s blog at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress
QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause with a donation:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####