Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
>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.<
.
All these records must be well known to our congresscretins and SCOTUS — not to act on this information and make further investigations, is dereliction of duty to say the least.
Oh, f only there were some word n spanish that is spelled a lot like cajones - but with a totally different meaning.
I would propose such a mythial lexical entry, but; don’t have the balls for it.
And it's absurd to say that the court must have had jurisdiction in order to take the case in which it says it doesn't have jurisdiction. Courts throw out cases for a lack of jurisdiction all the time.
There are lots of times a plaintiff has standing but the court lacks jurisdiction. If you sue your husband for a divorce in traffic court, you have standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because traffic courts can't grant divorces. If Microsoft sues Apple for patent infringement in San Francisco Superior Court, the plaintiff has standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because only federal courts can hear patent cases. If you sue me in small claims court for stealing a million dollars from you, you have standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because small claims court can't hear million dollar cases.
The decision that was posted dismissed her case but didn't sanction her. The sanctions order, I understand, was by the Washington Supreme Court based on her (allegedly) frivolous appeal from the dismissal order. I would have to see that order to say what she was sanctioned for.
So what court did she have standing in, that also has jurisdiction? If somebody is given standing, there has to be a court which has jurisdiction, right? This judge said it is not in the power of the JUDICIAL SYSTEM to determine Presidential eligibility - claimed that the Constitution puts that task solely on the shoulders of Congress - which is in direct conflict with both the Congressional Research Service and the 20th Amendment, as I noted.
What court is this judge saying DOES have jurisdiction then? Or does this judge hold that the law created standing for an issue that is not justiciable in ANY court?
And if the Washington Supreme Court says that the appeals are frivolous, then who was she supposed to appeal to?
What the judge said is that Washington law creates standing for any voter to challenge the qualifications of state candidates, but that the qualifications of the President are justiciable only before Congress, not before any court. (I know you think that contradicts the 20th Amendment, but I confess I don't see any language in that amendment about court determinations of eligibility.)
And if the Washington Supreme Court says that the appeals are frivolous, then who was she supposed to appeal to?
As I said, I haven't seen the Washington Supreme Court's decision, so I don't know what she was sanctioned for. In my legal career, I have seen people sanctioned for frivolous appeals, and it's usually not because they appealed to the wrong court, but because they made frivolous arguments on the appeal or lied about facts in the record.
The law she cited is found at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.68.011 and requires simply an affidavit from an elector, and the judge is to decide whether a name is about to be or has already been fraudulently placed on a ballot. It has no requirement that the candidate has to be sued, nor does it stipulate that the Presidential election is different than any other election. Her evidence is showing that fraud HAS occurred.
RCW 29A.20.021 (found at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.20.021 ) says: (1) A person filing a declaration of candidacy for an office shall, at the time of filing, be a registered voter and possess the qualifications specified by law for persons who may be elected to the office.
The Hawaii state registrar has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s HI birth certificate is not legally valid so none of his birth facts can be verified. Without any legally-determined birth facts, there is no way that either Obama or anybody at the DNC could lawfully (non-fraudulently) even CLAIM that Obama met the requirements to be President.
Washington SOS Sam Reed was sent a letter from Attorney Larry Klayman via certified mail, which he received on Sept 4th - before he received any Certification of Nomination from DNC Counsel Bob Bauer - informing him that the HI registrar had confirmed that there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama.
Sam Reed knew that Obama could not “possess the qualifications specified by law for persons who may be elected to the office” as REQUIRED by law in order to even FILE for placement on the ballot. Without any legally-determined birth facts, Obama simply cannot qualify. Period. It doesn’t take a judge - either state or federal - to know that. Sam Reed knowingly placed on the ballot somebody who cannot, by state law, even FILE to be placed on the ballot. This was absolutely election fraud, and the Constitutional issue doesn’t even have to be resolved. The very absence of any legally-determined birth facts is enough to know that Obama can’t qualify.
Furthermore, Obama should be found guilty in the State of Washington of a Class C Felony, according to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.84.311 .
.
Below is the law she cited. Where in that does it say anything about STATE offices, or differentiate between Presidential elections and any other election? Because the statute does not exempt Presidential elections, because it DOES include “general elections”, and because the general election for President is a STATE election (for state electors), this judge has no leg to stand on in making the claim that the state court lacks jurisdiction. State law can’t give persons standing in FEDERAL court, only standing in STATE courts, so this HAS to be justiciable in state court unless the law itself is unconstitutional.
Rulings in other states regarding what their SOS can or can’t do does not excuse this judge from being bound by Washington state law. If he wants to ignore this law he needs to find somebody to challenge its Constitutionality on the grounds that Presidential elections should be exempted. It is not his job to rule the language of this law unconstitutional under the US Constitution. He is not a federal judge. This judge clearly overstepped his bounds.
Legislature Home | Senate | House of Representatives | Contact Us | Search | Help | Mobile
RCWs > Title 29A > Chapter 29A.68 > Section 29A.68.011
Print Version | [No disponible en español]
Beginning of Chapter << 29A.68.011 >> 29A.68.020
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.
The federal citation he used was this:
“In Robinson v Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144 (2008), the U.S. District Court wrote, at page
1147:
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the
Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review
– if any – should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”
So a judge in WA can’t rule on Obama’s eligibility but state electors can? Methinks this judge is mixing oranges and apples in giving this citation.
And what this judge is supposed to be deciding is whether a name was about to be placed on the ballot wrongfully, as a result of fraud. The Washington law is a PREVENTIVE measure which has to be dealt with (basically) within 7 days of the filing. There is thus no way that what that federal circuit ruling talks about applies to this case.
And the other citation he gave was from an appeals court within the CA state judiciary. Again, like I said, one state’s judiciary does not decide how another state’s judiciary interprets and applies its own state law. That CA judiciary also overstepped its bounds if it wanted to interpret the US Constitution. That is a job for federal courts - if either this WA judge or the CA appeals court are to be believed.
This Washington judge is a moron and a douche. IMHO
Don’t cloud the issue with facts, dumbass.
You said, “I know you think that contradicts the 20th Amendment, but I confess I don’t see any language in that amendment about court determinations of eligibility.)”
In order for something to be a “political issue” it has to be specifically authorized for the legislative branch. Otherwise, all cases and controversies involving the Constitution fall to the judiciary to hear and decide.
So where in the 20th Amendment do you see Congress specifically given the authority and responsibility to decide that the President elect (that they just certified as the electoral winner) failed to qualify between the electoral certification and Jan. 20th?
Remember - if it doesn’t say, THEN IT FALLS TO THE JUDICIARY.
And this blasted judge should know that in order for a “case” to get to the judiciary (as the very federal appeals citation he used said would be the proper place for determining whether Obama could be the President) there would have to be a case where someone with standing brought a case - which is exactly what this case would have been if they had actually adjudicated it instead of unlawfully throwing it out - supposedly on the grounds that the feds have to decide it. 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. All the federal cases have depended on there being no standing, and this judge broke Washington law to ensure that the same thing would happen here.
Crook. IMHO
I apologize for my foul tongue tonight. Corruption and lies really bug me, but I should be able to keep my words decent.
These judges will stand before the incorruptible Judge one Day, and the truth will be known. No wiggle room, no excuses.
“....because plaintiff purports to bring this case under RCW 29A.68.011, subparts 1 and 3, which confers standing on any elector.”
The RCW confers standing to any elector. It is that simple.
If a party moves for a case to be dismissed as “frivolous” they can ask for sanctions. A fine, a penalty. In this case the fine is to pay the state’s attorney fees. The threshold for frivolous is that no issues raised, in this case by Jordan,would ever be open to any debate among reasonable people.
One of the reasons for the Superior Court dismissal was that the Court said it did not have jurisdiction to address if Obama was a natural born citizen. Problem is, Jordan never asked them to. If fact jordan said they could not even get to the matter of natural born citizen because a forged birth certificate was in the way. Using a forged birth certificate to prove he was eligible to get on the ballot in Washington state was the main point.
Excellent post and quite correct. the RCW stands alone and and is quite clear.
IOW, the Washington Supreme Court just called me, a large portion of the American public, Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo, Donald Trump, and the HI state registrar who has seen Obama’s HI record and sworn that he cannot verify the birth facts that were submitted to him.... “unreasonable people”.
(Hold your tongue, Nellie. Don’t say what really wants to come out...)
Them’s fighting words. The HI state registrar confirms that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery, law enforcement is undergoing a criminal investigation to find out who did the forgery... and these so-called “justices” claim that nobody reasonable would question whether Obama’s name was fraudulently placed on the Washington ballot?
Time for me to go work off some steam.
I think your are correct. The Judge had to get rid of this case because Jordan had standing. And, to make sure she would not appeal beyond the State, they hit her with a $13,000 sanction.
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.