Category Archives: Supreme Court

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

Posted on February 19, 2012 | 115 comments

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“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

Once again, as in 2008, we are confronted with the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency and to be on ballots nationwide. Once again, we have debate
among concerned citizens as well as legal scholars about the definition of natural born citizen, one of the requirements of the US Constitution. Once again
we have judges avoiding rulings, making excuses such as lack of standing and using inappropriate “precedents” for their decisions. Once again, as in 2008, we
have a Supreme Court that has not done their job, to clarify the law, the definition of natural born citizen.

Marbury v Madison is perhaps the most quoted US Judicial Opinion in US History. I have quoted it often myself. It is fitting and proper that I present it now.

“Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.

In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided:
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

The first object of enquiry is: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law enacts, “that there shall be appointed in
and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to
time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years.”

It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was
signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached
the person for whom it was made out.

In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has
been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed,
became his property.

The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution, declares, that “the president shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,
shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for.” The third section declares, that “he shall commission all the officers of the United States.” An act of congress directs the secretary of state to keep
the seal of the United States, “to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by
the President, by and with the consent of the senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before
the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States.”

These are the clauses of the constitution and laws of the United States, which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct
operations:
1st, The nomination. This is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary.
2d. The appointment. This is also the act of the President, and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
3d. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. “He shall,” says that
instrument, “commission all the officers of the United States.”

This is an appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself…. The last
act to be done by the President, is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the senate to his own nomination. The
time for deliberations has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act; and being the last act required from the person making it,
necessarily excludes the idea of its being, so far as respects the appointment, an inchoate and incomplete transaction.

The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission; and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It
asserts, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the Presidential signature.

It is never to be affixed till the commission is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence that
the appointment is made.

The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the secretary of state is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the President. He is to
affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it.

This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible; but is a precise course accurately marked out
by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States,
bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this regard, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the
President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose….

The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is
terminated in all cases, where, by law, the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the
absolute, unconditional, power of accepting or rejecting it.

Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.

To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

This brings us to the second enquiry; which is, 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.
One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own
discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he
is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists,
and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the
executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing
the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the
mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.

But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of
individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his
discretion sport away the vested rights of others.

The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the
will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear
than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that
duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

If this be the rule, let us enquire how it applies to the case under the consideration of the court.

The power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated, are political powers, to be exercised by the President according to
his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power, and his discretion has been completely applied to the case.

The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. If, for example, Mr. Marbury had
taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defence had
depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.

So, if he conceives that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right, either to the commission which has been made out for him, or to a copy of that
commission, it is equally a question examinable in a court, and the decision of the court upon it must depend on the opinion entertained of his appointment.

That question has been discussed, and the opinion is, that the latest point of time which can be taken as that at which the appointment was complete, and
evidenced, was when, after the signature of the president, the seal of the United States was affixed to the commission.

It is then the opinion of the court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of
peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is
conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the
office for the space of five years. 2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver
which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.

It remains to be enquired whether, 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and,
2dly. The power of this court.

1st. The nature of the writ.

If one of the heads of departments commits any illegal act, under the color of his office, by which an individual sustains an injury, it cannot be pretended
that his office alone exempts him from being sued in the ordinary mode of proceeding, and being compelled to obey the judgment of the law. How then can his
office exempt him from this particular mode of deciding on the legality of his conduct, if the case be such a case as would, were any other individual the
party complained of, authorize the process?

It is not by the office of the person to whom the writ is directed, but the nature of the thing to be done that the propriety or impropriety of issuing a
mandamus, is to be determined. Where the head of a department acts in a case, in which executive discretion is to be exercised; in which he is the mere organ
of executive will; it is again repeated, that any application to a court to control, in any respect, his conduct, would be rejected without hesitation.

But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the
particular direction of the President, and the performance of which, the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden; as for example, to record a commission which has received all the legal solemnities, it is not perceived on what ground the courts of the country are further excused from the duty of giving judgment, that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were to be performed by a person not the head of a department….

It was at first doubted whether the action of detinue was not a specified legal remedy for the commission which has been withheld from Mr. Marbury; in which case a mandamus would be improper. But this doubt has yielded to the consideration that the judgment in detinue is for the thing itself, or its value. The
value of a public office not to be sold, is incapable of being ascertained; and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing. He will obtain
the office by obtaining the commission, or a copy of it from the record.

This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it
can issue from this court.

The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court “to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles
and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if
this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely
incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time,
ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be
exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that “the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”

It has been insisted, at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction, to the supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause, assigning
original jurisdiction to the supreme court, contains no negative or restrictive words; the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction
to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United
States.

If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to
the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial powers, and the tribunals in which it
should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains
at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction
where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given
to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the
words require it.

When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and
establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in
which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction; the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one
class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the
clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise
appellate jurisdiction.

It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a
mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that
cause. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same
as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in
such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public
officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.

The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but,
happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well
established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own
happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor
ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is
supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or
establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

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 passed 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.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was
established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

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.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining
that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of
our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden,
such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the
same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at
pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be
sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of
the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

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.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to
obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any state.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered
in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex
post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution
endeavors to preserve?

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official
character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to
support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do
solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of
the United States.”

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?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.HTML

I find the following statements to be particularly relevant today and to posterity.

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;”

“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.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“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.”

“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?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

115 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Government, Judges, Lawyers, Marbury V Madison, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Justice Department and Obama indictment, Opening statement, Blagojevich Rezko Obama corruption, Evidentiary Proffer, Protecting Obama

Posted on March 15, 2011 | 596 comments

Justice Department and Obama indictment, Opening statement, Blagojevich Rezko Obama corruption, Evidentiary Proffer, Protecting Obama

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

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

 

U.S. Citizens

V.

U.S. Justice Department,

Barack Hussein Obama

 

Opening Statement

 

In a simpler, more sincere world, in a world of justice and fairness envisioned by our founding fathers, I would just ask that the evidentiary proffer be read, a few questions be asked and a grand jury convened to indict Patrick Fitzgerald and Barack Obama. The indictment of Fitzgerald would naturally lead to further indictments in the US Justice Department. This is not the world we live in today. Sadly, we live in an Orwellian world with no regard for the US Constitution and rule of law. A world where the end justifies the means.

We now know for a fact that there has been corruption and bias in the US Justice Department for years. Whistleblowers such as J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department employee, and long time Democrat, civil rights attorney, Bartle Bull, have corroborated our suspicions. Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, a crucial part of our checks and balances within the Judicial Branch as well as the larger checks and balances of the executive and legislative branches, have acted in a manner that if not conspiratorial, certainly biased or apathetic. And now, one of the chief players in this chicanery, Barack Obama, is in control of Eric Holder, the Attorney General. 

A cursory reading of this evidentiary proffer reveals a completed puzzle picture, a large billboard that reads:

  • Barack Obama was enmeshed in the Chicago corruption of Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko and was a participant in the rigging of the IL Health Planning Facilities Board. This well planned board rigging, which took place over many months, was a large part of the indictment and trial of Tony Rezko and the early legal charges against Rod Blagojevich.
  • The facts and reference to this rigging have diminished over time in the Justice Department legal documents and prosecution pleadings.
  • The prosecution of Rod Blagojevich has been repeatedly delayed.
  • Why was Tony Rezko, a businessman, prosecuted first instead of Blagojevich, the governor?
  • Why was the first Blagojevich trial so short?
  • Why were neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine called as witnesses?
  • Why was Rod Blagojevich arrested after the 2008 election?

The questions go on and on, but the answer is simple.
To protect Barack Obama.

 

Follow the proceedings here:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/protecting-obama-justice-dept-collusion/

596 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Chicago machine, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Courts, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Eric Holder, FBI, Federal Court, Government, Grand Jury Indictment, Illinois, Judges, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Pay to play politics, Prosecution, Rezko, Stuart Levine, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, United States, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on February 19, 2011 | 387 comments

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

387 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Congresswoman, constitution, Courts, Election 2008, Election Law, Eligibility, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, Inauguration, John Roberts, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Marbury V Madison, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

FL judge, Health Care Bill Unconstitutional, Judge Roger Vinson, Requires Americans to obtain commercial insurance

Posted on January 31, 2011 | 107 comments

FL judge, Health Care Bill Unconstitutional,  Judge Roger Vinson, Requires Americans to obtain commercial insurance

From the New York Times January 31, 2011.

“Like a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., said he would allow the law to remain in effect while the Obama administration appeals his ruling, a process that could take two years. But unlike his Virginia counterpart, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire health care act should fall if the appellate courts join him in invalidating the insurance requirement.

“The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.

In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeds the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Judge Vinson wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities.

“If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain,” Judge Vinson wrote.

In a silver lining for the Obama administration, the judge rejected a second claim that the new law violates state sovereignty by requiring states to pay for a fractional share of a Medicaid expansion that is scheduled for 2014.

Judge Vinson, the first judge to address that question, dismissed the contention that states were being illegally commandeered by the federal government. He said they always have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid, a joint state and federal insurance program for those with low-incomes.

The judge’s ruling came in the most prominent of more than 20 legal challenges to some aspect of the sweeping health law, which was enacted last year by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama in March.

The plaintiffs include governors and attorneys general from 26 states, all but one Republican, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small companies. Officials from six states joined the lawsuit this month after shifts in party control brought by last November’s elections.

The ruling by Judge Vinson, a senior judge who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, solidified the divide in the health litigation among judges named by Republicans and those named by Democrats.

Last month, Judge Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, Va., who was appointed by President George W. Bush, became the first to invalidate the insurance mandate. Two other federal judges named by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, have upheld the law.”

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01ruling.html

107 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, Government, Health Insurance, Healthcare bill, Lawsuits, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Constitution 101, State election laws, US Constitution rules, State election officials and electors legal duties

Posted on January 30, 2011 | 194 comments

Constitution 101, State election laws, US Constitution rules, State election officials and electors legal duties

“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

In men’s minds, as in nature, once a seed is planted, it many take many months to germinate, but the seed must be planted.

I was searching through Citizen Wells articles from 2008 on election laws and natural born citizen references when I came across this:

“Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.
State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.”

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

194 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, DC, Election, Election Boards, Election Law, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Government, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Constitution 101, Justice Scalia, Pay attention to the Constitution, Michele Bachmann class

Posted on January 25, 2011 | 85 comments

Constitution 101, Justice Scalia, Pay attention to the Constitution, Michele Bachmann class

“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

From MinnPost.com January 24, 2011.

“Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave members of Congress what amounted to a largely uncontroversial lesson on the Constitution and Federalist Papers in a briefing this afternoon organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“I told them to pay attention to the Constitution,” Scalia told MinnPost following the hourlong discussion, which included a short question and answer session between lawmakers and the Court’s most outspoken conservative jurist.

More than 50 members and staffers attended the “wonderful civil discussion,” which was closed to the press, Bachmann told reporters in a news conference afterwards. At least three Democrats were present, one of whom said the briefing was “incredibly useful” and non-partisan.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said Scalia told the members to get a hard copy of the Federalist Papers and keep it on their desks.

“You’re not going to like some of the things I have to say about the ability of Congress to limit the executive [branch],” Schakowsky said Scalia told them. Iowa Republican Steve King later told reporters that was in reference to Congress ceding authority to the executive in recent years, a practice King has frequently (and vocally) opposed.

King said Scalia was “very careful to not address subject matter that may come before the Court.” That includes the recently-passed health reform law, which is being challenged in several federal courts and is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.”

Read more:

http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2011/01/24/25162/pay_attention_to_the_constitution_scalia_tells_bachmann_group

Pop Quiz.

According to the US Constitution, which of the following is a requirement to be President of the US?

A) Citizen.

B) Natural born citizen.

C) No birth certificate.

85 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Government, JUSTICE SCALIA, Michele Bachmann, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate

Tagged , , ,

Robert Bauer et al illegally scheme with Obama, Attorney ethics, Rules of Professional Conduct, Criminal or fraudulent conduct

Posted on December 30, 2010 | 150 comments

 Robert Bauer et al illegally scheme with Obama, Attorney ethics, Rules of Professional Conduct, Criminal or fraudulent conduct

“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

“Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”… US Code, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384

Robert Bauer, husband of Anita ( Mao Tse-Tung is my hero) Dunn, is at it again. He is aiding Obama in his continued efforts to keep his birth certificate and other records hidden. At this point, it must be assumed that Bauer’s primary motivation is to avoid jail time for himself.

 From the Birther Report December 30, 2010.

“This is an update to the Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, lawsuit that was in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court of the United States website now shows the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was Distributed for Conference of January 14, 2011. The two previous filings by Col. Hollister in the Appeals court embedded below. That makes three eligibility cases against Obama before the Supreme Court in 2010, more details on the other cases here and here.

Click on the screen shot below and check out the law firm that is still defending Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.

Cycle of Discernment at Free Republic laid out the expensive details;

(Robert Bauer-married to former Obama WH Communications Director Anita Dunn, who professed that Mao Tse-Tung was a personal hero–was appointed last year as White Counsel by Obama and had been the lead atty representing Obama in blocking release of any Obama documents).”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/colonel-hollister-v-barry-soetoroobama.html

You remember Robert Bauer.

From Citizen Wells September 24, 2008.

“44. Mr. Berg then alleges that Barack Obama,
the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve
as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(contrary to fact) that Senator Obama is not a natural-born citizen.”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obama-files-motion-to-dismiss-dnc-motion-to-dismiss-september-24-2008/

From Citizen Wells September 28, 2010.

“Robert F. Bauer was a partner in Perkins Coie before becoming White House Counsel in 2009. Bauer also began defending Barack Obama in eligibility lawsuits in 2008. Perkins Coie has represented Obama for America for over 2 years. Bauer is married to Anita (“I look to Chairman Mao”) Dunn.

Here is the payment total to Perkins Coie from Obama for America for the second quarter 2010.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/obama-attorneys-aid-obama-in-illegal-activities-robert-bauer-perkins-coie-help-obama-hide-birth-certificate-records-payments-to-attorneys/

Many people are aware of the concept of attorney client previlege. Most people are not aware of the following.

From the American Bar Association.

“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent”

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_2.html

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_8_4.html

I stated in 2008 that Obama had to win the popular vote and scheme his way into the White House to avoid prosecution. Likewise, it is apparent that Robert Bauer is fighting to avoid prosecution of himself.

150 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, DC, Election Law, Eligibility, Federal Court, fraud, Government, Hawaii, Hollister lawsuit, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Justice, Law firms, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Standing, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

LTC Lakin verdicts, Terry Lakin patriot, Obama Congress Supreme Court State Election Officials Mainstream Media guilty

Posted on December 17, 2010 | 92 comments

LTC Lakin verdicts, Terry Lakin patriot, Obama Congress Supreme Court State Election Officials Mainstream Media guilty

“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

 

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

 

LTC Terry Lakin

American Hero

 

Guilty of Treason: Barack Hussein Obama

Guilty of dereliction of Duty:

Congress

US Supreme Court

State Election Officials

Guilty of conspiracy to Defraud the American Public: US Mainstream Media

From Citizen Wells November 12, 2008.

“What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.”

 

“Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
Philip J Berg response to ruling:
“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:
“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”
“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”
“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”
Read more here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html
Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”
Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :
“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”
Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the complete article here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

” 

92 Comments

Posted in American hero, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Commander in Chief, Congress, constitution, Courts, DC, Election Law, Electoral College, Founding Fathers, Government, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Justice, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patriotism, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, Thomas Paine, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Army, US Constitution, US Military, US Soldier, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Hollister v Soetoro update, December 6, 2010, Colonel Gregory Hollister lawsuit, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted on December 6, 2010 | 33 comments

Hollister v Soetoro update, December 6, 2010, Colonel Gregory Hollister lawsuit, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Despite the Orwellian lies being told in the mainstream media by the likes of Anderson Cooper, not only have there been more than a couple of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, the second one in a few weeks is on the US Supreme Court docket and it was also filed by a military officer.

Citizen Wells November 8, 2010.

“For Immediate Release – 8 Nov 2010

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 23 Nov 2010
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

Contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo for more details and comment at:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/kerchner-v-obama-update-november-8-2010-writ-of-certiorari-distributed-to-us-supreme-court-justices/

Gregory S. Hollister, Colonel, USAF, Retired, has a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the docket of the US Supreme Court.

“Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
My lawsuit against Obama has reached the US Supreme Court (copy of Docket attached).  Our legal team has done everything gratis to this point – however, there are certain costs we cannot avoid in moving forward to get a final ruling.
 
Having said that, I am including a link to a website I am still refining requesting donations to help defray costs for the effort.  We have held off on doing this for two years but it is time for me to solicit help. 
 
Therefore, please review the US Supreme Court docket and the website at the link and provide comments, suggestions and any donations you can afford.  Please feel free to forward to any and all you think may be interested as well.
 
We have been trying to get a website up for our non-profit but not there yet so I have done this through our for profit corporation.  Therefore, I will donate a majority of what is contributed to our non-profit and pay tax on the remainder as “income” so you are fully aware of what we are doing.
 
The website link is www.ResurgentEagle.com
 
Sincere thanks and best regards
 
Greg Hollister

Gregory S. Hollister, Colonel, USAF, Retired
President, Hollister Enterprises LLC
719-359-2185
www.HollisterEnterprises.Net

”
        
No. 10-678  
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  Case Nos.: (09-5080)
  Decision Date: March 22, 2010
  Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
 
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:    
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
  Washington, DC  20016  
  johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister
Attorneys for Respondents:    
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
  United States Department of Justice  
  950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.  
  Washington, DC  20530-0001  
  SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm

33 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Colonel Hollister, Commander in Chief, constitution, Courts, DC, Election Law, Eligibility, Government, Hollister lawsuit, Judges, Justice, Kerchner v Obama, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patriotism, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Air Force, US Constitution, US Military, Washington DC, white house, Writ

Tagged , , , ,

Anderson Cooper, Kapi’olani Hospital Obama birthplace?, Other misinformation from CNN

Posted on December 3, 2010 | 96 comments

Anderson Cooper, Kapi’olani Hospital Obama birthplace?, Other misinformation from CNN

“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

“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay.  The
messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify.  For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa.  As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone.  It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”…George Orwell, “1984”

I realize that not everyone who watches CNN is a far left mesmerized OBot. Many have been fooled for years into thinking that they are actually getting new, facts, the truth from CNN. Anderson Cooper proved once again several days ago that he and CNN are nothing more than a mouthpiece of Big Brother, Obama.

From Safeguard our Constitution. 

“Anderson Cooper, in a recent interview with Texas State Representative Berman, said Obama was born at Hawaii’s Kapi’olani Hospital- can he explain why the hospital won’t verify Obama’s birth there?- and why a letter purportedly from Obama posted on Kapi’olani’s website- was quickly removed after a reporter’s inquiry?

If Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital, can Cooper explain why no ORIGINAL birth record- to include a hospital name and attending physician– has been released?

Why is Cooper content to rely on verbal assurances from an obscure bureaucrat in Hawaii- who claims to have “personally seen and verified” that there is an original birth certificate on record? (is he thus admitting that the Certification of Live Birth which he repeatedly confuses with an original birth certificate- is NOT the original birth record)?

Does Cooper believe it is acceptable that the sole arbiter of the President’s Constitutional eligibility under Article II, Section 1, is one Hawaiian bureaucrat- who says “trust me”?

If there is an original birth record on file– why can’t the American public see this document?– why can’t TX Rep Berman have a copy of this 1961 original birth record?”

Read more:

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/softballquestions.html

Here is a good example from Anderson Cooper’s blog of an uninformed American. This person may want the truth. They won’t get it there.

“Nina   November 29th, 2010 10:08 pm ET
All Federal government employees MUST have a complete security background investigation according to their “clearance” by the FBI especially if they are in the position of “Commander and Chief”.”

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/29/the-birthers-are-back-join-the-live-chat/
 

The truth. Philip J. Berg’s assistant provided this information.

“We have received a lot of question asking “How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator.”

However, this is inaccurate according to Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI. Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance. See below:

This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.

Caller – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

FBI – The short answer is no, no we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

Host – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

Host – Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

FBI – That’s correct.

Host – That’s a little weird

FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.

Host – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.

FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.

Host – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.””

 Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

Nina, are you getting this information on CNN?

96 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, COLB, constitution, Courts, Election, Election Law, FBI, Hawaii, Health Department, Internet scrubbing, Journalism, Kapi’olani hospital, Lawsuits, Lawyers, media, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Orwellian, PHILIP J. BERG, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US Military, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,