Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Seattle Homemaker Fined $13,000 For Doing Background Check On Obama
January 28, 2013 | Linda Jordan

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birtherpunishment; birthers; everify; forgery; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-421 next last
To: 4Zoltan

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.


101 posted on 01/29/2013 12:14:46 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

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.


102 posted on 01/29/2013 12:18:49 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Hahaha! Jordan can verify that the PDF matches the $13000 on file in her records.


103 posted on 01/29/2013 12:27:10 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

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.


104 posted on 01/29/2013 12:32:43 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

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. ;)


105 posted on 01/29/2013 12:34:21 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

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.


106 posted on 01/29/2013 1:05:11 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
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.

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.

107 posted on 01/29/2013 1:18:00 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

It would be risky but it would make the point.

Judges such as this one, and Carroll, etc, deserve derision.


108 posted on 01/29/2013 1:20:21 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ethical

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.


109 posted on 01/29/2013 3:11:33 PM PST by Nogara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

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.


110 posted on 01/29/2013 3:24:57 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Dumba$$ - if you want the feds to be able to hear it, then decide the stupid state case one way or another and let it go to a federal appeal, where the FEDERAL courts will decide whether the Constitution forbids the obeying of the Washington law. The reason this judge wouldn’t do that is because he DIDN’T WANT the federal judiciary to get a case where there was standing.

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."

111 posted on 01/29/2013 5:09:29 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

In an appeal? What did she add in the appeal that wasn’t already addressed by the AG in the original suit?


112 posted on 01/29/2013 6:36:15 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

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.


113 posted on 01/29/2013 6:51:08 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I fart in their general direction.


114 posted on 01/29/2013 6:52:02 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Since when can the U.S.Constitution be amended by popular vote?

2008, when Article II eligibility was subverted by the popular election of a natural-born foreign national.

115 posted on 01/29/2013 11:41:59 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
In an appeal? What did she add in the appeal that wasn’t already addressed by the AG in the original suit?

I have no idea. As I said, I have not seen the Washington Supreme Court decision that sanctioned her.

116 posted on 01/30/2013 9:41:00 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If a state is a party to a suit SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.

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.

117 posted on 01/30/2013 10:10:06 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

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.


118 posted on 01/30/2013 1:19:55 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; butterdezillion

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/119376084/DECLARATION-OF-JEFFREY-T-EVEN-DETAILING-REQUEST-FOR-ATTORNEYS-FEES

Docket Entries -

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.casesummary&casenumber=878374&searchtype=aNumber&crt_itl_nu=A08&filingDate=2012-09-04%2000:00:00.0&courtClassCode=A&casekey=160443677&courtname=Supreme%20Court

The Court sanctioned Ms Jordan the exact amount detailed in the DSG Evan’s declaration.


119 posted on 01/30/2013 2:36:46 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Point well made.


120 posted on 01/30/2013 5:11:06 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I'll go along with Snopes on this one but they were totally wrong on the information on Iraqi uranium being sold to Canada in 2008.......

The claim was "the US discovered...." and Snopes debunked it claiming that the US knew about the uranium since the early 1990's.....

It was a play on words....

121 posted on 01/30/2013 5:16:46 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Jab her with a harpoon or just throw her from the train......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
My college ID was issued after Obama's would have been his and is in a lot worse shape than that sample. And on mine you can see the remains of the matriculation stickers for each term. This one's as pristine as Oswald's bullet.

I don't want to play the whole familiar game of pretending to know something about computer imaging, but the edges around the picture look far too sharp. Compare them with the edge around the picture in the other photo ID.

And ask yourself, would Columbia University actually single out foreign students like that? Pretty sure they wouldn't.

122 posted on 01/30/2013 5:29:21 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You left out an important fact. There is no state in the union that requires a presidential candidate from a major political party to submit a birth certificate to prove eligibility.
In most states, the state law says that certification by the major political party is what is needed. So if Nancy Pelosi in 2008 and Debbie Wassermann- Schultz in 2012 and Michael Steele in 2008 and Reince Priebus in 2012 say that Barack Obama and John McCain and Mitt Romney are eligible, they are eligible.
Of course those attestations of the major parties can be challenged by citizens, other candidates and party members in primary elections, but after 50 2012 challenges to Obama’s eligibility, no court ruled him to be ineligible.
If Mickey Mouse can stand up to the legal challenges, he would be good to go too.


123 posted on 01/30/2013 5:36:53 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Thanks for the links. I wish I could see the response that the lawyer spent so many hours working on. I guess it takes a while to make excuses. The appeal was requested on these grounds:

1. The judge had his decision written before the hearing even began and accepted “evidence” that was handed to him and to Jordan at the beginning of the hearing.

2. The SOS gave different filing deadlines to the RNC than to the DNC. Knowing the need to meet the Sept 22 deadline for mailing overseas military ballots (which had been in effect since 2009), Katie Blinn gave the RNC a later deadline but then the SOS’s office moved up the ballot printing date so that ballots were being printed even before all the nominations were required to be submitted. That rush was contrived and was used as a basis for the judge’s decision. (”But we’re already half through with our unlawful procedure!” is a tactic that was used in NE also, in regards to consolidating all Class One schools, even though the voters passed a Constitutional amendment. Apparently, “Better to ask forgiveness than permission” is a set-in-stone legal principle now, enough to overturn election results - in that case, a state Constitutional amendment.)

3. The SOS office allowed provisional certification of the candidates, against statute. As stated above, there was legally no time crunch to justify that.

I’ll just add this here based on what I’ve found regarding the OCON’s: the provisional certification when not required by legitimate deadlines is a way to pass the legal buck. Provisional certifications don’t certify that the candidate is “duly chosen” (in compliance with DNC rules which require an eligible candidate) or “qualified” (NBC, old enough, and resident long enough). In addition, in 3 tries I was never able to get Katie Blinn to send me a copy of the actual provisional certification that was sent to her and on which the ballot printing began. It may well be that they began printing ballots with NO statement by ANYBODY that Obama was qualified to be on that ballot. The only lawful communication regarding Obama’s legal qualifications at the time of that hearing may well have been Linda Jordan’s affidavit detailing the law enforcement finding of birth certificate forgery.

4. The judge misrepresented both the qualifications of Zebest - apparently through inaccurate ex parte “research” on his part - and what she actually stated. A judge’s incompetence or bias, as well as his own inaccurate research, is always a good reason to give a decision some fresh eyes. In addition, the judge didn’t even comprehend that this was about FRAUD, not about eligibility.

5. The SOS’s office was allowed to base their actions on media reports, which included claims that Obama’s long-form BC was genuine. But a law enforcement body has determined that the PDF that was presented was never a simple piece of paper that was scanned. It was forgery that violated state and federal laws. Jordan asked the Supreme Court to clarify that the SOS and judge are bound by both state and federal laws. (This was the part that got her punished, IMHO. The AG, SOS’s office, and judge ALL know they committed misprision of fraud, forgery, and perjury. That’s what this fine is really about, and her charges still stand. The Supreme Court is covering the a$$es of their colleagues, the good ol’ boy system in its full glory.)

6. The law requires write-in candidates to swear they are eligible but requires NO sworn statement of eligibility for the major party candidates, which is not equal treatment. Write-in candidates are placed under penalty of perjury but major party candidates and their leaders are not.

I’ll add this: Through the provisional certification, there wasn’t a requirement of ANY statement of eligibility, sworn or not. So the people responsible to ensure that the statute requiring major-party filers to be “qualified” are those representing the State of Washington. IOW, the SOS has no statements of eligibility from the candidate or party and thus has to rely on HIS OWN INVESTIGATION of the documentation for eligibility. The evidence offered in the media is known to be fraudulent and the SOS is actually participating in election fraud by ignoring law enforcement notification that the “evidence” he is relying on is fraudulent.

The long and short of this is that the SOS, AG, and judge all know that they are committing misprision of forgery, fraud, and perjury, and in order to cover the a$$es of their buddies, the Supreme Court is punishing Linda Jordan for saying it out loud.

The real ending of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? The little boy who said the emperor is naked goes bankrupt paying fines for speaking the truth that we can all see but that the naked, prancing, dancing judges and bureaucrats want us to pretend we don’t.


124 posted on 01/30/2013 6:24:18 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Nobody can claim ignorance here, though. It’s not a matter of Obama proving he is eligible. It’s a matter of the HI state registrar proving that nobody can lawfully claim he is eligible.

It is known that Germond and Villagairosa signed a certification that cannot legally be true. It is known that Bob Bauer suborned what he knew to be perjury and that he committed election fraud when he submitted a known-fraudulent OCON to the state SOS’s.

Knowledge brings responsibility. There is no question of Obama’s eligibility. It is known that he CANNOT be eligible, not having any legally-established birth facts.

Washington state requires that all filers be eligible to the office for which they are running. That’s independent of whatever perjury and fraud is committed to get on the ballot. Obama cannot be eligible to the office of President. He has no legally-established birth date, birth place, or birth parents based on a Hawaii birth certificate. If he’s provided documentation his whole life long, it’s been some OTHER birth certificate - a birth certificate which proves him INELIGIBLE. We know that now. To claim ignorance at this point is to take part in fraud, perjury, and treason.

Is that really what you want to do, Noob?


125 posted on 01/30/2013 6:30:42 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Also, it seems to me that you are saying that both Mickey Mouse and Osama Bin Laden would have to go on the WAshington ballot as long as there are democrats willing to say he’s their candidate. Is that correct?

If so, how does that fit with the idea that if the Constitution put in a requirement it is to be assumed that there is also within the Constitution a way for that requirement to be met? If the Constitution requires a Presidential candidate to be put on a state ballot that MUST BE administered by the states, whose officers swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution, then there has to be a way for the states to uphold that Constitution’s Presidential requirements. IIRC, that is one of the points made by the Congressional Research Service.

Are you calling the CSR attorneys liars or idiots (or just mistaken)?

Apparently this judge, the Washington Supreme Court, the AG and his attorneys, and the WA SOS all are. How about you go down on the record as saying whether you believe the CSR attorneys are wrong on this - and that Congress has been silent on this issue (and poo-poohing their constituents’ concerns for 4 years) because they trusted bad legal counsel?

BTW, the memo that Congress was given by the CRS is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions . It basically says that the state’s ability to administer its own elections is a given; the ability of Congress to challenge Presidential eligibility is not so clear. It is a matter of interpretation of state law as to whether the SOS has discretion to challenge even sworn statements and documents if presented with probative evidence that the claims are false or questionable.

It is clear that Washington law allows that. Any person who presents an affidavit has standing to challenge placement on the ballot. The judge acknowledged that. He exempted Presidential elections even though the statute does not exempt Presidential elections, and he does so on a supposed Constitutional basis that the CRS attorneys do not find to be present in the Constitution. In fact, they say the discretion to question Presidential eligibility depends specifically on what STATE LAW says, not what the Constitution says because the Constitution leaves the administration of elections to the states. IOW, this CRS memo totally contradicts what this judge is claiming.


126 posted on 01/30/2013 7:19:34 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I should add two things regarding the CRS’s statement that states may allow the SOS discretion to question sworn statements of eligibility when probative evidence to challenge that is presented:

1. When the WA SOS began printing the ballots there was no statement - sworn or otherwise - that Obama was qualified, even though WA filing statutes require that the filer be qualified.

2. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is conducting a criminal investigation of forgery and fraud because there is “probable cause” that those crimes occured. IOW, there is probative evidence. Law enforcement has legal standards for what constitutes probable cause. This judge can sneer at Arpaio, but to write off probable cause is a serious injustice that indicates a mindset AGAINST evidence and due process. Serious doo-doo with that guy.


127 posted on 01/30/2013 7:29:08 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

That’s great that the state of Washington can make money off one its citizens. No conflict of interest there with the state court.


128 posted on 01/30/2013 9:52:34 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Especially since it’s a citizen who just pointed out the fact that the officials in Washington are bound by federal laws on fraud and forgery, making it clear that all these unsavory characters in government are committing misprision of those crimes for failing to do anything about it when presented with probable cause by law enforcement. Jordan didn’t address it, but #5 in the statute (below) talks about neglect on the part of elections officials. To totally blow off law enforcement telling you that a crime has been committed and the holder of the nuclear football is claiming a birth certificate that cannot be his real one is gross neglect. They can no longer claim ignorance, and they can’t claim that the law only requires a sworn statement, Certification, etc, because statute itself says that a filer to be on the ballot SHALL be qualified for the office. It is MANDATORY. It’s not that the filer has to CLAIM to be qualified, it’s that the filer has to BE qualified. To totally ignore that law enforcement has said the candidate has staked his claims on a fraudulent “proof” of eligibility is gross neglect, and misprision of federal and state laws - in effect, participating in election fraud. The judge and justices are doing the exact same thing. They cannot claim ignorance.

The statute Jordan cited requires the judge to order Obama to desist from claiming his forged birth certificate as genuine, which is the fraud that Jordan is reporting and which is being used by the SOS to “presume” that Obama is eligible. The judge is violating the law. It is not the job of Jordan to bring in Obama; that is the judge’s job, according to the statute. Here it is:

RCW 29A.68.011
Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors.

Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that:

(1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any candidate on official ballots; or

(2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or

(3) The name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; or

(4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer; or

(5) Any neglect of duty on the part of an election officer other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has occurred or is about to occur; or

(6) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the official certification of the election.

An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a primary election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than two days following the closing of the filing period for such office and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a general election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than three days following the official certification of the primary election returns and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsection (6) of this section shall be filed with the appropriate court no later than ten days following the official certification of the election as provided in RCW 29A.60.190, 29A.60.240, or 29A.60.250 or, in the case of a recount, ten days after the official certification of the amended abstract as provided in RCW 29A.64.061.

[2011 c 349 § 25; 2007 c 374 § 3; 2005 c 243 § 22; 2004 c 271 § 182.]

Notes:
Effective date — 2011 c 349: See note following RCW 29A.04.255.


129 posted on 01/31/2013 5:13:24 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

In order to create a court case where the evidence itself can be examined, the judge was REQUIRED to presume that the charge in the affidavit was true. On appeal, Obama could try to refute the charge.

Here’s a court case cited by the Congressional Research SErvice’s 2011 version of a memo on Presidential eligibility. This regards a man born in 1909 (before hospital births were routine and before birth certificate registration was nearly automatic). Sometimes this guy claimed he was born in the US and sometimes he claimed he was born in Greece. There was no legally valid BC either place. So the court had to filter through all the evidence to see what was credible and what wasn’t. He did have a delayed birth certificate from the US, which in the absence of any other BC anywhere else and the spottiness of birth certificate registration in that area at the time was considered a legal starting point. Because the OTHER evidence, including official records in Greece, supported what was on that delayed birth certificate it was ruled that he was born in the US and his claims otherwise were to get out of registering for the draft and his friend making misinformed claims about him on his behalf (on his 2nd marriage certificate) because he was drunk at the time.

This is the case: LIACAKOS v. KENNEDY
195 F.Supp. 630 (1961)
United States District Court District of Columbia.
June 29, 1961.

This is where it is found: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=1961825195FSupp630_1716.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

And this is a money quote that fits what the SOS and/or judge needed to do according to Washington statute: PROVIDE A CASE FOR APPEAL:

“A ruling of an administrative official denying citizenship has no prima facie effect or any other effect except to serve as a basis for establishing a justiciable controversy. What is being tried now is the cause of action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship. In such an action the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This burden of proof, however, need not be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a fair preponderance of the evidence, for naturally, the proceeding is of a civil nature.”

In this case, all Jordan is asking - and the law is requiring - is that a ruling be made that establishes a justiciable controversy so that the burden of proof regarding Obama’s birth facts would fall on Obama - the only one who can authorize release of the GENUINE record and not the forgeries he’s been using - and the true facts could be legally determined so that Washington statute requiring the filer to be qualified could be obeyed.

And THAT is precisely what they all failed to do. Deliberately. That failure, in light of law enforcement’s declaration of probable cause for forgery and fraud regarding the documents the candidate has set forth so far, is gross negligence on the part of EVERY ONE of these people: SOS, AG, judge, and justices. All they had to do was create a case for Obama to use as a platform to legally prove he is qualified to be on the WA ballot. There is no legal threat or problem whatsoever, if Obama has a valid HI BC.

IOW, all these people are OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, albeit in a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one (at this juncture). They should all be either impeached or censured by the bar.


130 posted on 01/31/2013 5:38:22 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Your arrogant contempt is duly noted.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

131 posted on 01/31/2013 10:26:05 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
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.

So you are assuming that Osama Bin Laden runs for the nomination of a major political party, that none of his primary opponents (who unquestionably would have standing) challenges his right to run, and that the national convention of the party nominates him?

132 posted on 01/31/2013 10:31:13 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
There is no question of Obama’s eligibility. It is known that he CANNOT be eligible, not having any legally-established birth facts.

(a)Your factual assumption is based on some secret writing on Hawaii's certification, that no one but you and one or two other people in the country seem to be able to read. Every court and election official who has read Hawaii's certification reads it as saying that Obama was born in Hawaii.

(b)You also ignore the point, which has been made countless times by judges, that the Constitution does not require a President to submit a birth certificate. I will re-ask you the question I asked you several times previously, and which you have never answered: what "established birth facts" did President Lincoln have? Or Teddy Roosevelt? Or William Howard Taft?

133 posted on 01/31/2013 10:39:18 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I haven't read Liakos (I have a brief due today for a paying client). Was it a Presidential eligibility case?
134 posted on 01/31/2013 10:42:53 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

She’s getting smacked around by the “standing” issue. She has no inherent right to demand a legal investigation of anyone, and unless she can show specific harm done to her personally and directly, she has no standing to file the suit.


Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen has “no standing” when an illegally elected POTUS would impact me personally and directly through any legislation that he signs or EO that he puts in place. I do not understand the parsing of language here.


135 posted on 01/31/2013 10:55:16 AM PST by MWestMom (Will Americans stop someone who views our children as "collateral damage" in their quest for power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The trial judge dismissed Jordan v Reed with prejudice and the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s request for court costs. We can discuss the points of law ad nauseum but this ballot challenge is over.
Ms. Jordan has established a “defense fund” to assist her in raising the money she needs to pay her sanction.
In the 2012 general election cycle there were fifty ballot challenges to Obama in 22 states; all failed.
I was unaware of the CRS Report being referenced at all or introduced as evidence in Jordan v Reed.
In his dismissal order the trial court judge in Jordan v Reed cited the California Court of Appeals ruling in Keyes v Bowen which was a nearly identical challenge from 2008 against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Keyes v Bowen went to the California Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. The original jurisdiction ruling still stands.
The California Appeals Court said: “In any event, the truly absurd result would be to require each state’s election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party’s selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certifications of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.”
So, Congress is the final arbiter of Mickey’s and Osama’s eligibility and the 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to determine whether Mickey and Osama “qualify” if they made it through vetting by primary election opponents, the party nominating process, voters in the general election, the Electors, and lawsuits from losing candidates. And it only takes one Senator and one Representative to raise an objection.


136 posted on 01/31/2013 12:00:52 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Answer the question. If the dems were willing to nominate Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse, would WA statute require them to be on the ballot? How would they ever be kept off the ballot or be prevented from becoming President?


137 posted on 01/31/2013 12:00:58 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Osama Bin Laden wouldn’t have to submit a BC either, but if the dems nominated him would he be Constitutionally qualified?

Given what a reasonable person can know about Osama Bin Laden, would there be any LEGAL responsibility for a SOS putting Osama Bin Laden on the WA ballot, given that WA statute requires the person to be qualified?

If a WA judge or Supreme Court justice received an affidavit describing law enforcement’s criminal investigation based on probable cause for forgery of documents that Osama Bin Laden had put forth as proof of his eligibility, and the judge was required by WA statute to order Bin Laden to desist from the unlawful activity.... would that judge or Supreme Court justice have any LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for refusing to do so?


138 posted on 01/31/2013 12:08:05 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

It was a citizenship case. The man’s only citizenship record from the US was a delayed birth certificate. He asked the court to examine his records and legally determine his birth facts and declare him to be a US citizen.

Very applicable, and it’s interesting that Maskill chose this case. He misrepresented what the judge actually said though. The judge made it clear that in the early 1900’s there were legitimate reasons for him not to have a US BC and that the claims on the BC were supported by the absence of a Greek BC as well as from Greek documents actually saying that the man was born in the US.

Does make me wonder how this man’s case would be different if the judge had found that the man had forged records to cloud his citizenship.


139 posted on 01/31/2013 12:16:50 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

IOW, if Congress is willing to let Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse be President, then the rest of the country is stuck with him and nobody can do a darn thing about it.

Nice to know that’s what you think. There is nothing to hold Congress accountable to the Constitution. Our Constitution is only as secure as the Congress that has - what - 8% approval and is less appreciated than having a root canal.

And if Congress is told that the Soros communist-Islamist cabal will collapse the US economy unless the critters do as they’re told, then that’s the end for the US of A.

Wow. You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of babies who have no object constancy. Every time Mom leaves they think that is the end of her because they don’t know she still exists even when they don’t see her. So they lose their Mom every time she passes out of their sight. They don’t expect her to come back. They believe that she can be gone just like that. What they cry for is to have their needs met, not because they expect her to still be there.

I’m grieving a country I loved. You’ve been living with the assumption that this country could be gone in a heartbeat while the whole helpless country looks on as she is slain by whatever thug threatens the DC sewer-rats. You’re quite ready to accept that this country can be killed by treasonous bastards in DC just like that. I believe the Founders were smarter than that, and that’s why they created THREE BRANCHES of government, checks and balances, and the Constitution.

It’s no wonder you don’t grieve. You’ve never even HAD the same country as I’ve had.

“Every man dies. Not every man really lives.”


140 posted on 01/31/2013 12:29:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; butterdezillion

“...because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”

Judge England from a transcript of Grinols v Electoral College, 3 Jan 2013.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120844360/Transcript-of-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-3-Jan-2013


141 posted on 01/31/2013 12:44:29 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Answer the question. If the dems were willing to nominate Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse, would WA statute require them to be on the ballot?

See Nero's post #136.

How would they ever be kept off the ballot or be prevented from becoming President?

The voters, the electoral college, Congress's certification, or a quo warranto case by the Republican nominee.

142 posted on 01/31/2013 12:53:47 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
And if Congress is told that the Soros communist-Islamist cabal will collapse the US economy unless the critters do as they’re told, then that’s the end for the US of A.

Soros is one man, a rich one, but no James Bond supervillain. If you really think he has the power to collapse the world economy, perhaps you have some evidence of this?

And if he could, do you think no member of Congress would publicize-- and thereby neutralize-- the threat?

And if his threat were so fearsome that no one would call him out, why wouldn't he threaten the court as well?

So, even by your theory-- which, most respectfully, sounds like something out of a comic book, not a law book-- there is no reason to add a meaningless layer of judicial review to a process which the 20th Amendment assigns to Congress.

143 posted on 01/31/2013 1:01:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

That hearing was a travesty.

The judge references hearing from the HDOH. Who filed that document from the HDOH to the judge, when, and what document was it? He says it is the only credible information that the Court received. When did they receive it, in what form, and from whom?

It has to be a different document than anything that’s been known publicly, because the HDOH has NEVER certified the authenticity of what was posted online, and when Ken Bennett specifically asked the HDOH to verify either the genuineness of the online image or the actual birth facts, ONAKA REFUSED.

So unless this judge has a document that nobody knows about, he is a bald-faced liar.

Show me the documents.


144 posted on 01/31/2013 1:19:24 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

Comment #145 Removed by Moderator

To: MWestMom
Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen has “no standing” when an illegally elected POTUS would impact me personally and directly through any legislation that he signs or EO that he puts in place. I do not understand the parsing of language here.

Because that would affect everyone in the country equally, meaning that it could be resolved through the electoral process (as one of my law professors put it, "if everyone has standing, then no one has standing"). Someone with a unique personal stake would have standing (Mitt Romney, for example).

146 posted on 01/31/2013 2:42:38 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Because that would affect everyone in the country equally...

Yes. And if anyone wants to look further, the controlling precedent on this question is usually taken to be Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a 1992 SCOTUS decision written by Antonin Scalia.

"This Court has consistently held that a plaintiff claiming only a generally available grievance about government, unconnected with a threatened concrete interest of his own, does not state an Article III case or controversy."


147 posted on 01/31/2013 2:55:34 PM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse would be required to be on the WA ballot if the dems were willing to nominate them. Correct?

If so, then how is the WA statute enforced, that requires filers for placement on the ballot to “qualify”?

How would any of these people stop OBL or MM from being on any state ballot: voters? electoral college? Congress?

How would the electoral college keep OBL or MM from becoming President if either the voters voted for them or the election was stolen for them? What is the process that would be used to stop these ineligible creatures from becoming President?

Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers created a system where the fate of the whole Constitution depends on the person who is defeated in the PResidential election?


148 posted on 01/31/2013 3:01:55 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse would be required to be on the WA ballot if the dems were willing to nominate them. Correct?

If so, then how is the WA statute enforced, that requires filers for placement on the ballot to “qualify”?

How would any of these people stop OBL or MM from being on any state ballot: voters? electoral college? Congress?

How would the electoral college keep OBL or MM from becoming President if either the voters voted for them or the election was stolen for them? What is the process that would be used to stop these ineligible creatures from becoming President?

Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers created a system where the fate of the whole Constitution depends on the person who is defeated in the PResidential election?


149 posted on 01/31/2013 3:04:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Yes. And if anyone wants to look further, the controlling precedent on this question is usually taken to be Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a 1992 SCOTUS decision written by Antonin Scalia.

Exactly. Although it has old roots, the standing doctrine in its modern form was developed by conservative judges to deter liberal judicial activism.

150 posted on 01/31/2013 3:05:46 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-421 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson