Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
On January 10, 2013 the Washington State Supreme Court fined Linda Jordan almost $13,000 because she legally challenged Barack Obama's use of forged identity documents: A fake birth certificate and phony Social Security Number.
Jordan wanted the original records to be produced for comparison. Why did Jordan want to see Obama’s real ID?
• The Maricopa County Sheriff Department has presented credible evidence that the birth certificate Barack Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 was forged. (Maricopa County Sheriff Department 602.876.1801) • Jordan’s own research confirmed that Hawaii law requires signatures on birth certificates to be in permanent ink. The signature of Obama’s mother, on his purported 1961 birth certificate, is partly ink and partly a computer created signature. This compilation means the signature was forged. • Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels has confirmed that the Social Security Number Obama is using was previously issued to someone else. SSN’s are NEVER re-issued.
Obama used this fake ID to prove he was eligible to be President. It got him on the ballot and into the White House. This is fraud in the least, treason at worst.
“I filed the lawsuit because I fear for America’s future. A serious crime has been committed right in front of us and federal agents turned a blind eye to it. There is substantial evidence that Barack Obama is using fraudulent identity documents. The court ignored this evidence and sanctioned me with almost $13,000 in fines for exercising my right to request an evidentiary hearing. They labeled my concerns "frivolous". Surely Americans have the right to confirm if Obama used fake ID to gain access to the White House.” Linda Jordan
http://www.obamaforgeries.com
Any AG in the country could claim that ANY appeal is “frivolous” simply because a court has already ruled once. That’s what an appeal is.
These bastards need a dose of their own medicine.
If there was no merit to the case and no chance of reversal then they wouldn’t even have to spend attorney time defending it. I say the AG’s office should be audited and every hired person canned, for wasting taxpayer money on self-admittedly unnecessary expenses.
And then every appeal that this AG ever files needs to be called “frivolous” because a judge or court already ruled - and the fees need to be paid by him PERSONALLY.
Better yet. Linda Jordan needs to post a PDF of $13,000 for the AG to see, and call it good. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hahaha! Jordan can verify that the PDF matches the $13000 on file in her records.
This AG is too stupid to know that he’s arguing (supposedly on behalf of the State of Washington) that the Washington statute is unconstitutional because it doesn’t exempt Presidential elections from a provision allowing filing document fraud to be reported and investigated in a state court case. Then again, this guy is too stupid to know that cases filed under that statute are about fraud and not about Presidential eligibility. Apparently he thinks that the feds are supposed to do HIS JOB in enforcing state law.
I bet this guy doesn’t even know which end he chews his food from.
And yes, I know I’m talking to myself.
Nah, it’s enough if she verifies that the INFORMATION CONTAINED IN the PDF matches the information contained in the $13,000 on file in her records. ;)
To make it truly equivalent, Linda would need to have a press conference where her lawyer says that the PDF is genuine and that Linda herself has never been allowed to touch the money that the PDF is a scan of.
Sure, an appeal is not necessarily frivolous just because the trial court ruled. But some appeals are frivolous. I have no idea if the appeal in this case was; no one has posted the Washington Supreme Court's ruling finding it so.
If there was no merit to the case and no chance of reversal then they wouldn’t even have to spend attorney time defending it. I say the AG’s office should be audited and every hired person canned, for wasting taxpayer money on self-admittedly unnecessary expenses.
In my experience, it can sometimes take more work to respond to a frivolous appeal than to a meritorious one. If the appellant cites 100 cases in support of their argument, it takes a lot of time to read them all and demonstrate that they were previously overruled or do not say what the appellant says they say. If the appellant makes an extensive factual argument, counsel for the appellee has to review the entire trial court record to show that the claimed facts are not supported by the evidence submitted below.
It would be risky but it would make the point.
Judges such as this one, and Carroll, etc, deserve derision.
Had she voted for obama then civil fraud would have been a solid cause of action. Your vote is property, intangible perhaps, but property, its taking is actionable. See Restatement Torts.
Absolutely, anyone can make a claim that an appeal is frivolous in fact it is not that unusual for an attorney to make such a claim in their response but making a claim does not mean a court is going to agree with you.
I haven’t seen the WA Supreme Courts ruling but I would suspect it basicaly agrees with what the DSG laid out in his letter.
I would be more careful about throwing around the term "dumba$$," since you cannot appeal a civil case from state court to federal court (except a cert. petition to SCOTUS). Google "Rooker-Feldman doctrine."
In an appeal? What did she add in the appeal that wasn’t already addressed by the AG in the original suit?
If a state is a party to a suit SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. Either way that the decision went, SOMEBODY was going to file a suit against the state, and SCOTUS would have jurisdiction. The only way these crooked lawyers could get around that was to make sure there was no case, so even though there was standing and the law did not exempt this kind of case, they threw the case out.
The AG and the judge are both claiming that the Washington statute is unconstitutional because it allows fraud to be challenged in all general elections, without exempting Presidential elections. They are also claiming that the Congressional Research Service is wrong when they say that the running of Presidential elections is up to the states.
If that’s what they really believe then they should have challenged the law when it was passed. But the way to get it to the Supreme Court so it can be declared unconstitutional for anybody to challenge fraudulent election filings in state courts is if they make a ruling and the party that doesn’t like the ruling sues the state.
You do recognize that they are calling the state statute unconstitutional, right? And that that is almost the entire basis for their ruling? You do realize that they decided that because they mistakenly believed that this was about ELIGIBILITY when the law specifically says it is about FRAUD, right? So they took the law that was in front of them and ignored it, and took the affidavit that was in front of them and pretended it said something else. And then they called the FILER a moron who wanted to be counted among the people making noise. Project much?
Sheesh. I can’t think of any respectable words to say that express my utter and absolute disgust with these sad sacks.
I fart in their general direction.
2008, when Article II eligibility was subverted by the popular election of a natural-born foreign national.
I have no idea. As I said, I have not seen the Washington Supreme Court decision that sanctioned her.
I know Article III seems to say that on its face, but it has never been interpreted that way. Otherwise, every single criminal case in America, from shoplifting to murder, would have to be tried before SCOTUS, because the State is a party. In practice, and by statute, the only cases in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction are those between two states (typically, boundary disputes or water-rights cases).
Either way that the decision went, SOMEBODY was going to file a suit against the state, and SCOTUS would have jurisdiction.
No. If a case is filed in state court, the only way to get it before SCOTUS is via a writ of certiorari. Google "Rooker-Feldman Doctrine."
The only way these crooked lawyers could get around that was to make sure there was no case, so even though there was standing and the law did not exempt this kind of case, they threw the case out.
You're not making any sense here. If someone had a right to sue the State before SCOTUS after the state court decided the case (and they don't), what would it matter on what basis the state court decided?
The AG and the judge are both claiming that the Washington statute is unconstitutional because it allows fraud to be challenged in all general elections, without exempting Presidential elections. They are also claiming that the Congressional Research Service is wrong when they say that the running of Presidential elections is up to the states.
No, they are merely interpreting the language of the state statute. Just like a state statute that gives the Superior Court jurisdiction of "all civil actions" will be interpreted to not include patent cases because those are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
If that’s what they really believe then they should have challenged the law when it was passed.
No, you can't ordinarily challenge a law when it is passed; constitutional challenges to statutes come up only when the issue arises in a case brought under that statute.
But the way to get it to the Supreme Court so it can be declared unconstitutional for anybody to challenge fraudulent election filings in state courts is if they make a ruling and the party that doesn’t like the ruling sues the state.
(a) That's not true, for reasons stated above, but (b) if it were true, the plaintiff in this case could now sue the State of Washington before SCOTUS. So your point makes no sense to me.
You do recognize that they are calling the state statute unconstitutional, right?
No.
And that that is almost the entire basis for their ruling?
No.
You do realize that they decided that because they mistakenly believed that this was about ELIGIBILITY when the law specifically says it is about FRAUD, right?
No.
So they took the law that was in front of them and ignored it, and took the affidavit that was in front of them and pretended it said something else.
If it wasn't about eligibility, what was it about? I don't recall Obama filing a copy of his birth certificate with the State of Washington.
And then they called the FILER a moron who wanted to be counted among the people making noise.
Maybe because she was?
Project much?
Do you?
Sheesh. I can’t think of any respectable words to say that express my utter and absolute disgust with these sad sacks.
I happen to think that Obama is a lousy President and I voted for Governor Romney, but I have an utter and absolute disgust for people who give conservatives a bad name by making baseless and horrible accusations of criminality against honest judges who are merely following the law and the Constitution by not sticking their noses into matters which are to be decided by the voters and their elected representatives. Judicial activism is not a conservative value.
Mickey Mouse files to be on the Presidential ballot in Washington. He posts a PDF online that is immediately recognized as a C&P job, and when asked whether it is true that Mickey Mouse, male, was born in Omaha, NE, in Douglas County, to Louise Disney and Walt Mouse, the Nebraska state registrar will not say the claims are true (as he is required to do if those claims are made on a valid record) but instead will only say that they’ve got a piece of paper that claims that.
In his biography Mickey Mouse claimed to be born in Tanzania, his social security number is from Alaska where he never lived, his draft registration has a postal date stamp on it that has never been in existence anywhere, and his passport was breached 3 times - the last time being 2 days after a photo was taken of a fake birth certificate with no seal on it.
So Mickey files to be on Washington’s ballot. Everybody knows the fishy stuff with his records. Washington law requires all candidates placed on the ballot to be qualified, and allows any person to report fraud and/or non-qualified candidates in time to stop a name from being on a ballot.
What has to happen in order to keep Mickey off the Washington ballot? There is no federal ballot. Or do Washington’s laws guarantee that Mickey has to be on the ballot?
What if Mickey’s name was Osama Bin Laden, and everybody knew that he was born in Afghanistan? What has to happen to keep Osama off the Washington ballot? Or do Washington’s laws guarantee that Osama has to be on the ballot? Again, there is no federal ballot.
Let’s start there. Tell me how it is supposed to work.
FWIW,
Linda Jordan’s - Grounds for Direct Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106321251/Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Appealed-to-WA-Supreme-Court
DSG Jeffrey Evan’s - Declaration of Request for Attorney’s Fees
Docket Entries -
The Court sanctioned Ms Jordan the exact amount detailed in the DSG Evan’s declaration.
Point well made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.