Category Archives: Justice

Justice

George Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting, Six female jurors deliberated 16 1/2 hours, NAACP requests Justice Department file civil rights charges

George Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting, Six female jurors deliberated 16 1/2 hours, NAACP requests Justice Department file civil rights charges

“I think things would have been different if George Zimmerman were black for this reason: He never would have been charged with a crime,” …defense attorney Mark O’Mara

“The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”…J. Christian Adams

From CNN July 13, 2013.

“George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin’s death”

“George Zimmerman never denied shooting Trayvon Martin, but he said he did so in self defense. Late Saturday night, a Florida jury found him not guilty in the teenager’s death.

The verdict caps a case that has inflamed passions for well over a year, much of it focused on race.

The six jurors — all of them women — deliberated for 16½ hours. Five of the women are white; one is a minority.

When he heard his fate, Zimmerman had little visible reaction. He turned and shook the hand of one of his attorneys before sitting back down, smiling only after court was adjourned.”

“The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin’s unlawful killing was “done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent” and would be “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”

What led jurors to this verdict?

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he “intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.” That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.

Ultimately, they believed Zimmerman wasn’t guilty of either charge. None of the jurors wanted to speak to the media after the verdict.”

“The NAACP has called for the Justice Department to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman and urged the public to sign a petition to support the effort.”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ

Edward Snowden update, June 18, 2013, US government not able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me, Mainstream media ignores largest program of suspicion less surveillance in human history

Edward Snowden update, June 18, 2013, US government not able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me, Mainstream media ignores largest program of suspicion less surveillance in human history

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed,
If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly,
You may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”…Winston Churchill

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From the Canberra Times June 18, 2013.

“US government can’t stop the truth: Ed Snowden”

“NSA leaker Edward Snowden defended his disclosure of top-secret US spying programs in an online chat on Monday with The Guardian and attacked US officials for calling him a traitor.

“The US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. He added the government “immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home,” by labelling him a traitor, and indicated he would not return to the US voluntarily.

Congressional leaders have called Mr Snowden a traitor for revealing once-secret surveillance programs two weeks ago in the Guardian and The Washington Post. The National Security Agency programs collect records of millions of Americans’ telephone calls and Internet usage as a counterterror tool.

The disclosures revealed the scope of the collections, which surprised many Americans and have sparked debate about how much privacy the government can take away in the name of national security.

“It would be foolish to volunteer yourself to” possible arrest and criminal charges “if you can do more good outside of prison than in it,” he said.
Mr Snowden dismissed being called a traitor by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the allegations in an interview this week on Fox News Sunday. Mr Cheney was echoing the comments of both Democrats and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, including Senate Intelligence committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein.

“Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honour you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein … the better off we all are,” Mr Snowden said.”

“In answer to the question of whether he fled to Hong Kong because he was spying for China, Mr Snowden wrote, “Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.”
He added later, “I have had no contact with the Chinese government.”

Mr Snowden dismissed the US government’s claims that the NSA surveillance programs had helped thwart dozens of terrorist attacks in more than 20 countries, including the 2009 al-Qaeda plot by Afghan American Najibullah Zazi to blow up New York subways.

“Journalists should ask a specific question: … how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive (sic) that, and ask yourself if it was worth it.””

“Mr Snowden explained his claim that from his desk, he could “wiretap” any phone call or email — a claim top intelligence officials have denied. “If an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT (signals intelligence) databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want,” he wrote in the answer posted on the Guardian site. “Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on — it’s all the same.”

The NSA did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. But Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said that the kind of data that can be accessed and who can access it is severely limited.”

“In one of his final replies, Mr Snowden attacked the “mainstream media” for its coverage, saying it “now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.”

Read more:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/it-pro/security-it/us-government-cant-stop-the-truth-ed-snowden-20130618-2oexh.html#ixzz2WZAuqcXm

Thus far, I am inclined to believe Mr. Snowden.

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

“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

 

Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen of the US is being challenged in 2 state supreme courts.

In Vermont, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, H. Brooke Paige has challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status due to his father being Kenyan/British.

In Alabama, perhaps the most conservative state in the US, Virgil Goode and Hugh McInnish have challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status since no evidence of US birth has been presented. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio investigation has submitted a lengthy affidavit regarding the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov and other records.

We expect a fair proceeding in the AL Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Roy Moore, is a strong proponent of adhering to the US Constitution and has spoken of the lack of evidence for Obama being eligible.

From Citizen Wells April 1, 2013.

From Attorney Larry Klayman April 2013.

“Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court”

“Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.”
 

“Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.”

“Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

 
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
 
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
 
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
 
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.”
 

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/obama-eligibility-appeal-filed-in-judge-roy-moores-alabama-supreme-court-attorney-larry-klayman-secretary-of-state-beth-chapman-failed-to-verify-moore-expressed-doubts-about-obama/

What may surprise you is the hearing that H. Brooke Paige received before the VT Supreme Court on April 23, 2013.

Despite the best efforts of Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz to obfuscate by distorting VT statutes and election responsibilites and Mr. Paige’s standing, some of the justices presented intelligent questions and statements.

I have had several email exchanges and a lengthy phone conversation with H. Brooke Paige. This quote says much:

“Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

Here is a segment of exchanges between Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz and the supreme court justices.

Obama Justice Dept. seized AP phone records, Obama pals Eric Holder and Tony West, US Attorney or assistant may issue subpoena, West on Obama eligibility court records

Obama Justice Dept. seized AP phone records, Obama pals Eric Holder and Tony West, US Attorney or assistant may issue subpoena, West on Obama eligibility court records

“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

“Now, I don’t get upset when foreign and national journalists fail to mention Tony Rezko, or the Daley boys, or how the Chicago machine plans to staff the Department of Justice, and the new Department of Homeland Casinos.”…John Kass, Chicago Tribune July 30, 2008

 “Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing

our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the
open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing
civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims.
Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open
contempt is voiced for these types of cases.”…J. Christian 
Adams, former USDOJ attorney

From The Blaze May 14, 2013.
“REPORT: DOJ NEEDED HOLDER’S SIGNATURE TO GET AP PHONE RECORDS”

“The Associated Press reported Monday that the Department of Justice had secretly seized two months worth of telephone records from reporters and editors working for the global news organization.

Needless to say, news that the DOJ had secretly obtained AP phone records has rocked the media. As it turns out, people really, really don’t like being spied on or having the feds snoop around their personal information.

This is going to take some explaining.

And it looks like it’ll take a lot more than a “low-level employee” to get U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder out of this tight spot.

See, as the Washington Examiner’s Phillip Klein notes, “it will be harder for President Obama to pin the DOJ’s action on lower level bureaucrats … because requests to subpoena news organization records require the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder.”

From the DOJ’s U.S. Attorneys’ Manual:

The Attorney General’s authorization is normally required before the issuance of any subpoena to a member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of a member of the news media. However, in those cases where the media member or his or her representative agrees to provide the material sought and that material has been published or broadcast, the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General may authorize issuance of the subpoena, thereafter submitting a report to the Office of Public Affairs detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the subpoena….”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/report-doj-needed-holders-signature-to-get-ap-phone-records/

From Citizen Wells September 25, 2012.

“You were warned.

Beginning in 2008, and especially with the revelations from the Tony Rezko trial, you were warned that Obama would bring his Chicago Pay to Play Politics to Washington, DC.

It has happened. In one of the worst possible places.

The US Justice Department.

One of the latest and best examples is the promotion of Tony West in the USDOJ.

First, a little background on Tony West.

From CNN November 12, 2008.

“Tony West – Friend of Barack Obama – Part One”

“But West is also known as a friend of President-Elect Barack Obama. West met Obama in 2004 and offered to help him should he elect to run for President. When Obama did, he called West and thus began West’s role as Chair of the fundraising committee for Northern California. It also started a round of basketball between the two that’s gone well enough for Obama to give West a pair of his shoes to wear for games.””

“Consider the following timeline.

  • Beginning in January 2009, when Obama took control of the White House and Justice Department, he began using USDOJ attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to prevent his birth, college and other records from being released. Prior to then Obama used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie to keep his records hidden. Tony West is one of those USDOJ attorneys. See list below.
  • On January 21, 2009 retired Naval Commander Charles Kerchner, represented by attorney Mario Appuzo, filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility for the presidency. “Obama has sealed most of his important documents that would shed light on his true identity and the main stream media has not challenged him as to why he did so.”
  • The case was subsequently appealed. A response was given by USDOJ attorneys on March 8, 2010. Tony West was listed at the top of the list. “Plaintiffs’
    alleged grievances regarding President Obama’s constitutional
    qualifications reflect a generalized interest in the proper
    administration of the law “shared by all the American people,”
    App. 10, not a concrete injury particular to plaintiffs. The
    Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article III standing may
    not be predicated on such injury. Plaintiffs’ attempts to
    aggrandize their harms, based on oaths they have taken to support
    to the Constitution, their heightened interest in constitutional
    principles, or the possibility of future military service, fail.”
  • Tony West appeared before the House Judiciary committee on June 24, 2010. ”One of this Subcommittee’s duties and obligations is to oversee the activities of the various components of the Department of Justice over which the Subcommittee has jurisdiction.” “I thank Assistant Attorney General Tony West of California and points west, the head of the Civil Division, for appearing before us today and to report on the division’s recent activities.” As you can already see, this is like questioning the fox on recent activity in the hen house.
  • Mr. West made a number of statements that you will find interesting:”Since assuming this position in April 2009, I have focused on three main priorities for the Civil Division: Protecting the American people, protecting taxpayer dollars, and protecting the Nation’s consumers.””The Civil Division is vigorously defending the Affordable Care Act health care reform statute against multiple lawsuits brought on constitutional and other grounds.””The President has pledged to make this Administration the most open and transparent in history, and the department is doing its part to make that pledge a reality.”  Read more below.
  • On September 20, 2012 Obama nominated Tony West to be the full time number 3 position in the USDOJ.

Anybody see a problem here? A conflict of interest!

CHICAGO PAY TO PLAY POLITICS.

Obama’s use of Tony West, a friend and fundraiser, to assist him, in cooperation with other USDOJ attorneys, in eligibility lawsuits and in keeping his records hidden, is a clear conflict of interest. This was further exacerbated by West representing the USDOJ before the House Judiciary Committee on June 24, 2010. Obama’s nomination of Tony West to a full time position as the number 3 position in the USDOJ is a clear case of Obama’s continued Chicago pay to play politics of reward your crony, put them in a power position and use them to protect and further your agenda.

Our checks and balances have been destroyed by the Obama camp. We no longer have a viable US Justice Department. Congress and the Judiciary Committee have failed to do their job and we have the most corrupt person ever to occupy the White House.

We cannot immediately remove members of congress or the Judiciary Committee, but we can contact them, voice our disgust and let them know that history will not view them kindly. The members of the Judiciary Committee can be found in the document below.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/obama-corrupts-us-justice-department-chicago-style-tony-west-promotion-classic-obama-pay-to-play-west-and-usdoj-complicit-with-obama-hiding-records-and-eligibility/

Tony West represented Barack Obama as a defense attorney, at taxpayer expense, to help Obama keep his records hidden and violate the US Constitution. Here is one small example.

“Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110049041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2010″

“CHARLES KERCHNER, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BARACK OBAMA, et al.,”

“ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES”

“TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General”

“Plaintiffs’
alleged grievances regarding President Obama’s constitutional
qualifications reflect a generalized interest in the proper
administration of the law “shared by all the American people,”
App. 10, not a concrete injury particular to plaintiffs. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article III standing may
not be predicated on such injury. Plaintiffs’ attempts to
aggrandize their harms, based on oaths they have taken to support
to the Constitution, their heightened interest in constitutional
principles, or the possibility of future military service, fail.”

Vermont Supreme Court appeal on Obama natural born citizen status, H. Brooke Paige standing, Attorney Todd Daloz flawed arguments, Standing non issue, Constitution and duties ignored

Vermont Supreme Court appeal on Obama natural born citizen status, H. Brooke Paige standing, Attorney Todd Daloz flawed arguments, Standing non issue, Constitution and duties ignored

“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

“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

“The Elections division protects the integrity of campaigning and elections in Vermont.”…Vermont Secretary of State website

H. Brooke Paige, whose case challenging Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency was rejected by Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent on November 2012, appealed his case before the following Vermont Supreme Court Justices on April 23, 2013.

Honorable Paul Reiber, Chief Justice
Honorable John Dooley, Associate Justice
Honorable Marilyn Skoglund, Associate Justice
Honorable Brian Burgess, Associate Justice
Honorable Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz represented Secretary of State James Condos.

The issue of standing dominated the hearing. Mr. Paige presented a clear definition of natural born citizen. His documentation was minimal. A further analysis of his argument will be provided later.

It is clear that the majority of citizens, including judges, attorneys and politicians do not understand what a Natural Born Citizen is as included in the
Constitution for presidential eligibility.

It is furthermore clear that status quo is passing the buck instead of fulfilling implied and explicit constitutional duties.

It is also clear that Secretary of State James Condos and other secretaries of state and election officials, when confronted by similar challenges about natural born citizen status should have requested clarification from their Attorney Generals and the courts.

Courts have shirked their responsibility, from the US Supreme Court to the state courts.

Marbury v Madison makes this clear.

“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?

Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz makes the argument that Secretary of State James Condos has no power or duty to vet a candidate.

Oh really?

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

All state election officials swear an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

Article VI of the US Constitution.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

Some states explicitly provide for challenges by the secretary of state.

GEORGIA CODE
“*** Current Through the 2012 Regular Session ***

TITLE 21. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2012)

§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy
shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.
Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by
filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public
office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in
writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on
the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the
Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike
such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots,
a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such
candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”

Explicit or implied,

Secretary of State James Condos took an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

One of the justices asked if all of the state election officials should be required to vet all of the candidates. That was not the question at hand.

In this case, the Vermont Secretary of State was notified of the problem and refused to act.

Once again, an American courtroom, despite the caution from Marybury v Madison, shirked their duty and tried their best to make this about standing.

Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!

In fact, at least one justice questioned this.

There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.

1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.

2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.

3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.

Attorney Daloz tries to obfuscate and minimize the VT elections statutes in regard to Mr. Paige having standing.

Quite the contrary. They are crystal clear.

§ 2603. Contest of elections

“(a) The result of an election for any office, other than for the general assembly, or public question may be contested by any legal voter entitled to vote on the office or public question to be contested.

(b) A contest is initiated by filing a complaint with a superior court alleging:

(1) that errors were committed in the conduct of the election or in count or return of votes, sufficient to change the ultimate result;

(2) that there was fraud in the electoral process, sufficient to change the ultimate result; or

(3) that for any other reason, the result of the election is not valid.

(c) The complaint shall be filed within 15 days after the election in question, or if there is a recount, within 10 days after the court issues its judgment on the recount. In the case of candidates for state or congressional office, for a presidential election, or for a statewide public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court, Washington County. In the case of any other candidate or public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court in any county in which votes were cast for the office or question being challenged.

(d) The Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to contests of elections, except that such cases shall be placed upon a special calendar, and hearings shall be scheduled on a priority basis, as public policy demands that such questions be resolved promptly.

(e) After hearing, the court shall issue findings of fact and a judgment, which shall supersede any certificate of election previously issued. If the court finds just cause, the court shall grant appropriate relief, which may include, without limitation, ordering a recount, or ordering a new election. If during the hearing the court receives credible evidence of criminal conduct, the court shall order a transcript of all or part of the testimony to be forwarded to the proper state’s attorney. If a new election is ordered, the court shall set a date for it, after consulting with the secretary of state; in ordering a new election, the court shall have authority to issue appropriate orders, either to provide for special cases not covered by law, or to supersede provisions of law which may conflict with the needs of the particular situation.

(f) The court shall send a certified copy of its findings of fact and judgment to the secretary of state.”

Here are segments from the court proceedings that relate to Mr. Paige’s argument and compliance and attorney Daloz attempting to prove that Mr. Paige has no standing. Attorney Daloz even further tries to dilute the standing issue by implying that congress should be the arbiter. The states control the election process until the certification of the electoral votes by congress. Only then can congress question eligibility. They have failed to do so.

The entire proceedings can be heard here.

Mr. Paige’s inaccurate statements about Obama’s birth certificate will for the moment be assumed to be based on ignorance and not agenda. This will be explored later.

Blagojevich appeal attorney Len Goodman on Obama drone program, Drone Justice is Blind, There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike

Blagojevich appeal attorney Len Goodman on Obama drone program, Drone Justice is Blind, There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

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

“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

I am still awaiting word if the opening brief in the Blagojevich appeal was presented today, April 25, 2013.

Len ( Leonard) Goodman is one of the defense attorneys in the Blagojevich appeal.

From the Len Goodman attorney website.

“Biography

Leonard Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense attorney with a reputation for taking on, and winning, the most difficult cases.  Since graduating from Northwestern University School of Law in 1989, Mr. Goodman has devoted his career to the representation of persons charged with serious crimes and has been a strong advocate for the cause of justice.  He has tried criminal cases in state and federal courts throughout the Midwest.  His appellate practice is nationwide.

Mr. Goodman has the rare distinction of having won major criminal cases at every level of the state and federal court systems, including wins (obtaining the reversal of his clients’ criminal convictions) in the United States Supreme Court (drug conspiracy conviction), the Illinois Supreme Court (first degree murder), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (first degree murder) and the Illinois Appellate Court (two first degree murders and one attempted murder). The appeals that he has briefed and argued have helped change the law and advance the cause of justice (See significant cases).

He has represented high-profile defendants and the indigent, all with equal vigor and has won awards for his work on behalf of the wrongfully convicted and on behalf of an Afghani man detained at Guantanamo Bay without charges or evidence of any wrongdoing.

Mr. Goodman is also an adjunct professor of Law at Depaul University where he teaches Federal Habeas Corpus.”

http://lengoodmanlawoffice.com/wp/biography/

From In These Times April 10, 2013.

“Drone Justice is Blind

There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike.

BY LEONARD C. GOODMAN

For the first time in history, the United States government has proclaimed its legal right to assassinate any person, anywhere on the globe, as long as our chief executive believes that person to be a terrorist. President Barack Obama has said that most of the people we are incinerating are “al-Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Precise numbers are hard to come by, due to the secrecy under which the drone program operates. But the various groups that track drone strikes agree that since Obama took office, more than 350 strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have killed at least 2,400 people. This means, outside of Afghanistan, U.S. drones are killing on average at least 47 people a month. If you include drone strikes in Afghanistan,the numbers are much larger.

The administration’s claim as to the legality of these strikes relies on the fiction that a rigorous review of evidence takes place before a “terrorist” is targeted. However, no matter how smart and reasonable Obama might be, he is not personally reviewing the evidence against most of the people we are killing. In fact, according to CNN, at least half of drone strike deaths have been the result of “signature strikes,” in which drone operators decide, based on visual evidence of suspicious behavior, to fire on people whose identities they don’t even know. As one government official told the New York Times, to the CIA, “three guys doing jumping jacks” looks suspiciously like a terrorist training camp.

We are told that drone killings neutralize imminent threats to America, but we need only consider the numbers to know we are being lied to. There cannot be 50 people every month who were on the verge of launching an attack on the U.S. until they were “neutralized” by a drone. We therefore must ask: To whom did each targeted person pose a threat? Were they a threat to U.S. military bases or CIA installations located within their country? Were they a threat to corporate interests located within their country? Were they a threat to the regime that governs their country and allows us to fly the drones?”

Read more:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/14835/drone_justice_is_blind/

Judge Roy Moore sworn in,January 11, 2013, Ten Commandment judge returns, God and scripture references, No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen

Judge Roy Moore sworn in,January 11, 2013, Ten Commandment judge returns, God and scripture references, No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen

“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

“Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty,” Moore said. “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful.”

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.

“This is the strangest thing indeed. The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law,” he said.

“They can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said.”…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

From AL.com January 11, 2013.

“Ten Commandment judge returns: Roy Moore sworn in as Alabama’s chief justice”

“In a ceremony heavy on references to God and scripture, Roy Moore took the oath of office today as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore was joined by many relatives and a number of classmates from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, where he graduated in 1969.

An overflow crowd attended the investiture ceremony at the state judicial building to see Moore return to the office roughly nine years after he was removed for his refusal to follow a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument that Moore had placed in the state judicial building. Moore has said that order was wrong.

He did not mention the controversy during today’s speech. He did quote George Washington from an inaugural address on the subject of acknowledging God.

“It was right then to acknowledge God. And it will continue to be so,” Moore said.
He also said the foundation of the judicial system was laid in Deuteronomy 1:16-17.
“We’ve got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some scripture or is backed by scripture,” Moore said.
More than 100 people watched the ceremony from an overflow area on closed-circuit television.

Tommy Bryan, a member of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals since 2005, was sworn in as an associate Supreme Court justice.

Bryan was elected to fill the seat vacated by Justice Thomas Woodall, who retired.

Moore was sworn in Circuit Judge John Bentley from the state’s 25th Judicial Circuit, which includes Marion and Winston counties. Bentley attended West Point with Moore. Bentley introduced a number of other West Point graduates who came to Montgomery for Moore’s swearing in.

Justice Michael Bolin swore in Bryan, whom he called one of his best friends.
C.O. Grinstead, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Oxford, drove to Montgomery to see Moore sworn in. He said Moore was a long-time friend.

“I’m thankful he ran and that is not a derogatory statement against the previous chief justice,” Grinstead said. “I just think the name Roy Moore is a statement in itself against crime and something for great morality.””
http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/01/ten_commandment_judge_returns.html

From WND September 20, 2010.

“Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution”

” The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.

So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.

His comments came today in an interview with WND about Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who yesterday was denied permission by Army Col. Denise R. Lind to obtain evidence that could document Obama is not eligible to occupy the Oval Office.

Lakin refused to follow his latest deployment orders to go to Afghanistan, because he was unable through Army channels to document Obama’s eligibility, and the president himself has declined opportunities to do so.

Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers that be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America.

A federal judge opined that the monument shouldn’t be there and ordered its removal. Moore refused and ultimately was removed from office by a state commission that he says “blindly” followed the order without evaluating its legitimacy.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Moore said the ruling is a symptom of a judiciary across the nation that now believes in following “blindly.”

“The highest law in this country is not the order of the Supreme Court of the U.S., not the order of the commander in chief, or any subordinate officer,” he said.

Instead, it is the Constitution, which in this particular case demands that the president be a “natural born citizen,” a requirement not imposed on other officers.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama’s eligibility never has been documented. The “Certification of Live Birth” his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

“Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He’s not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal],” Moore said.

It doesn’t matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

“The same thing applies in the military as in the judicial system,” he explained. “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s not the order of a higher officer, not the order of a judge.”

Lind found that since Congress allocates money for the war effort and the Pentagon was created, an order tracing back to the military hierarchy should have been sufficient for Lakin.

“That’s wrong,” Moore said. “They’re not the commander in chief.

“No order in the military can be issued without the authority that backs the order. The president didn’t give the order, but he is the authority that backs the order,” he said.

With the current protocol to simply follow orders, Moore warned, the U.S. will develop more incidents like that involving Lt. William Calley in Vietnam. The atrocities of My Lai were carried out under the guise of “following orders,” Moore noted.

Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty,” Moore said. “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful.”

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.

“This is the strangest thing indeed. The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law,” he said.

“They can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/199001/#lbsZ5CFlGZtGHvzd.99