Category Archives: Courts

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

“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

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and have been for well over 20 years.

I do not always get to listen to him but I caught a few minutes yesterday when he was discussing the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

He used citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

Even John McCain has this right. Cruz’s eligibility is subject to scrutiny.

To Limbaugh’s credit, he did go on to read the eligibility provision from the US Constitution and state the difficiencies of the candidates and opposing thoughts on what NBC means.

I found the following offensive. It reminds me too much of John Boehner and the mainstream media:

“I’m not saying that won’t happen, but they’re not gonna succeed in going into court and have Ted Cruz told by a court, “Hey, Mr. Cruz, we’ve just discovered you’re not a citizen. Leave the country! Turn in your passport and go back to Canada.”  It isn’t gonna happen. ”

Citizenship is not the term or the question. Hell, we’ll let anybody be a citizen.

It’s natural born citizen!

From Rush Limbaugh January 7, 2016.

“Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction”

“Well, we’re getting closer to the day that actual votes are going to happen, which is why all of this kerfuffle is effervescing up and boiling over. I mean, the nonsense on whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. It’s stunning.”

“The latest to join this bandwagon suggesting that Ted Cruz may want to actually go to court and get some confirmation on the fact he’s a citizen, it could be a problem out there, John McCain. John McCain is now officially questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for the presidency. It’s getting into bizarro territory here. Remember, now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz’s. It’s amazing.

Folks, I left the program yesterday, and this was the subject we were laughing about, the way Trump was talking about it and raising the issue but not opining on it. And because the Republican establishment is scared to death of either one of them winning, the gears got into full motion and people started investigating this constitutionally, intellectually. You would not believe, one website probably has 75,000 words written on this. And the 75,000 words include the learned opinions of countless other scholars on whether or not Ted Cruz is actually an American citizen.”

“Anyway, the eligibility question is an interesting political development because it is gonna be explored, it is gonna be a distraction. The Democrats are gonna milk it for all it’s worth because of what happened to Obama and the birthers. And despite the fact that there’s no similarity or commonality in the two claims, they’re still gonna rely on the low-information voters’ ignorance of this and act like, “Hey, this is fun. You know, you guys did it to Obama, we got a chance to do it to you,” so that’s why they’re gonna get in on it.”

“But it’s an opportunity for a lot of people to show their chops, demo their chops on the Constitution. I mean, here’s what this really is all about. It’s right out of the Constitution. It is very, very simple. It’s Article 2, Section 1. “No person except a natural born citizen…” I’m telling you, I went to a blog site, and there’s a 75,000-word article on “natural born citizen,” what it means. I thought, “You know what? I could print that out, I could read that whole piece, and it’d be my program today. I could take the day off; just read that piece. At the end of that you’d think I’m nuts or brilliant.”

But 75,000 words! That’s a wild guess. But it printed out to 20 pages. “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of it United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.” There’s nothing else. You can have an IQ of 20. You can be dumb, stupid. You can be poor, you can be uneducated. None of that matters. You just have to be a natural born citizen, gotta be 35 years old, and you have to have lived within the United States for 14 years.

That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

“It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.

There are essentially two ends of the spectrum here about which everybody agrees, in terms of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” 1. A person born in the United States to parents, both whom are United States citizens. Obviously, you’re natural born. You’re born here. Your parents are citizens. Bammo, you’re a citizen. Nobody questions it, and you’re natural born. By the way, if you Planned Parenthood aficionados are listening, it has nothing to do with artificial wombs and all that. That’s not what “natural born” means. We can rule that out right now. We’re not talking about test tubes here.

Although we might somewhere down the road. You never know. And the other end of the spectrum is a person born outside the United States to parents, neither of who is a United States citizen, is not a natural born citizen. Nobody disagrees with that. Even if citizenship is obtained through naturalization later, that is not natural born citizen. So if you’re a naturalized citizen — born somewhere else, your parents are not Americans — and if you come here and become a citizen? “Sorry, you’re not qualified. Too bad.”

Now, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between these two points on the spectrum here. Rubio and Jindal born in the US to parents neither of whom was a citizen at the time that he was born here. So, bammo. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents, one of whom (his mother) was a US citizen, and as far as the best minds have worked on this, that alone qualifies Cruz. Now, Trump months ago… We had the audio sound bite yesterday. Months ago, Trump said of Cruz, “Ah, it’s not about that.”

Trump says, “Cruz is perfectly fine. It’s not a problem here. I looked into it; we have no problem with Cruz.” Now, yesterday Cruz becomes the focus point of Trump. “Weeeeell, I don’t know. I might be a little nervous. He might want to get clarification.” That’s all it took to get the media revved up and create this distraction now that is designed to distract Cruz, raise doubts, weaken support, all of these things. It’s ’cause Cruz is the front-runner now in the Hawkeye Cauci.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/07/cruz_citizenship_kerfuffle_is_a_distraction

DISTRACTION???

Come on Rush, I know that you have always claimed to be an entertainer, but it’s the Constitution.

 

Advertisements

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

Rod Blagojevich attorney Len Goodman filed an appeal, petition for a writ of certiorari, with the US Supreme Court on November 17, 2015.

The SCOTUS then had a response indicated by December 21, 2015.

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)

This response has been extended to January 20, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

The Blagojevich appeal has not been denied yet.

Is this significant?

Here are some cases that have been denied.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121415zor_8n59.pdf

 

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“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.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

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?”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

 

Whereas:

  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada with 1 US Citizen parent.
  • The US Constitution states: “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”
  • The US Supreme Court has not settled the definition of natural born citizen.
  • Despite what you may have read, there is much disagreement among legal scholars about the definition and as to whether or not Cruz is eligible.
  • Some media reports say he is and others he is not.
  • The country does not need another presidential election cycle with this question not being settled.
  • Ted Cruz and other candidates need to know where they stand.
  • PolitiFact stated: “That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court. For that reason and others, the Ohio researchers called Cruz’s eligibility legally unsettled.”
  • The US Supreme Court must do their job. Marbury v Madison: “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.”
  • Ted Cruz can request an advisory opinion from the FEC. Example: HASSAN v. FEC, October 1, 2012. “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

Citizen Wells to Edward Snowden.

I will make this short and sweet.

As one North Carolinian to another.

Truth seeker to truth seeker.

Under no circumstances should you return to the US as long as Obama is in the White House.

It was scary enough before Obama took control of the White House and Justice Department in January 2009.

The bias in US courts of all levels in 2008 was surprising and scary.

I will not burden you with details but there are plenty on this site.

However, the fact that numerous Justice Department attorneys assisted Obama with keeping his records hidden should be enough to frighten you.

Scan this website for court and Justice Department references.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.

At your service Wells.

God bless.

 

Judicial Watch US District Court Hearing July 10, 2014 Lois Lerner IRS emails, IRS failed to notify of lost emails, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, District of Columbia, Special prosecutor to be appointed

Judicial Watch US District Court Hearing July 10, 2014 Lois Lerner IRS emails, IRS failed to notify of lost emails, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, District of Columbia, Special prosecutor to be appointed

“Don’t think I want to be on stage with Grassley on this issue.”…Lois Lerner email

“The IRS is clearly in full cover-up mode,” “It is well past time for the Obama administration to answer to a federal court about its cover up and destruction of records.”…Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 
From the New York Observer June 27, 2014.

“BREAKING: Meet Emmet Sullivan, IRS Judge Who Once Sicced a Special Prosecutor on DOJ”

“Earlier today, attorneys for Judicial Watch sought a courtroom status conference “as soon as possible to discuss the IRS’s failure to fulfill its duties to this court under the law, as well as other ramifications of this lawsuit.” It took Judge Sullivan just a few hours to grant the hearing.

Now the IRS will have to talk to Judge Sullivan about all this—and he has the power to do something about it.

Judge Sullivan is the judge who held federal prosecutors in contempt, dismissed an unjust indictment against a United States Senator, and publicly excoriated the Department of Justice. He also had the moral conviction, courage and gumption to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department and the individual prosecutors.

The IRS, the White House, and the DOJ have a lot of explaining to do (and some emails to locate). The Washington Examiner reports that “No mention was made in that production of the lost Lerner emails, even though the original Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed in May 2013 specifically sought them. Judicial Watch further noted that ‘although IRS had knowledge of the missing Lois Lerner emails and of the other IRS officials, it materially omitted any mention of the missing records’ in an April 30 status update on its document production.”

Emmet G. Sullivan, a graduate of Howard University and Howard Law who was appointed by President Clinton, is one of the heroes of my new book, Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. Judge Sullivan ordered an independent investigation of the Department of Justice, which revealed its corrupted prosecution of United States Senator Ted Stevens.”

Read more:

http://observer.com/2014/06/breaking-meet-emmet-sullivan-irs-judge-who-once-sicced-a-special-prosecutor-on-doj/#ixzz35u2gbOmu

From Judicial Watch June 27, 2014.
“Federal Court Grants Hearing on IRS Email Destruction to Judicial Watch”

“Judicial Watch today filed a Motion for Status Conference, and within hours was granted a hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to confer about the emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials, which were the subject of longstanding Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and a lawsuit, and which the IRS now claims to have “lost” (Judicial Watch v. IRS(No. 1:13-cv–1559)). The hearing is scheduled for July 10.

The emails Judicial Watch has sought since May 2013 cover portions of the same period for which the IRS on June 13, 2014, notified the House Committee on Ways and Means were lost or destroyed. Yet, according to the Motion for Status Conference, the IRS failed to notify either Judicial Watch or the court concerning the “lost” emails:

Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and the Committee’s request indisputably seek the same emails of Lois Lerner and the other IRS officials, including Nikole Flax, from January 1, 2010 to the present. Despite the obvious relevance, IRS has still not notified the Court or Plaintiff of the destruction of emails and whether the same issues relating to production of emails of Lois Lerner or the other six IRS officials exist in this lawsuit. Plaintiff only learned of the destroyed records on June 13, 2014, when the news media reported on the existence of IRS’s letter to Congress about the status of the emails.

In May 2013, Judicial Watch submitted four separate FOIA requests for IRS communications concerning the review process for organizations seeking tax exempt status. One of the FOIA requests specifically sought Lerner’s communications with other IRS employees and with any government or private entity outside the IRS regarding the review and approval process for 501(c)(4) applicants from January 1, 2010, to the present. A second request sought communications for the same time frame between the IRS and members of Congress and other government agencies, as well as any office of the Executive Branch. After the IRS failed to provide the information, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on October 9, 2013.

The Judicial Watch Motion for Status Conference contends that its FOIA lawsuit led to the discovery of the “lost” emails:”

 

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-court-grants-hearing-irs-email-destruction-judicial-watch/

Motion:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/motion-status-conference/

 

 

Thanks to commenter cabbyaz.

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont, May 15, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states abrogated duties, Judge Moore Circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont, May 15, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states abrogated duties, Judge Moore Circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus

 

“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.”…Citizen Wells, March 23 2014

Thursday, May 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court will decide whether or not they will take on the appeal from the Vermont courts of H. Brooke Paige in Paige V Vermont. A challenge of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status.

The SCOTUS should have clarified what a natural born citizen is in 2008 when Obama was first challenged.

Sadly they did not and since thrn have continued to abrogate their responsibilities.

Sadly again I expect them to pass the buck.

From H. Brooke Paige April 24, 2014.

“Wells,

Current “scoop” at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx  docket
13-1076 additional information appears at:
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1076 where the case will be shown as
scheduled for conference when a date is set (no sooner than 14 days after
date set for response).

The State filed a response waver March 26th, if the case passes muster in
the conference, SCOTUS would request that the State file a response – in
the absence of which the case would proceed on the merits outlined in my
writ.

Another Vermont SCOTUS case just after mine – Daniel Brown v Vermont,
State filed response waver on was received on April 4th with the case
“distributed” on April 16th for the conference on May 2nd.
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1113, the conference schedule is found at:
https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-05-02

I suspect that SCOTUS is awaiting “candidate Obama’s” response
(required by April 9th) before scheduling the case for conference. All
cases are considered in conference.

For now patience seems in order – the conference review is the
“gatekeeper” for SCOTUS cases – the “rule of four” decides which cases
will proceed – possibly on the May 22 or 29
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2013termcourtcalendar.pdf

Thank You for Your Continued Interest,

Brooke”

AL Chief Justice Roy Moore in the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling stated:

“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.”