Posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:01 AM PST by knarf
While researching another matter, I came across this startling bit of legality ...
Looks like “Adverse Possession” is now incorporated into the Constitution, right behind the newly discovered power to force people to enter into a voluntary contract or else be taxed.
What a strange world we live in.
or a new hit song? Domo arigato Mr. De Facto!
Obama is not legal. He’s naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. He’s ineligible to be POTUS.
The Defacto Officer Doctrine denies third parties their right to sue for harm because an ineligible officer assumed an office in a manner prescribed for an eligible officer. If no harm has been done, then the lawful actions undertaken by the ineligible officer cannot be overturned by the fact they were enacted by an ineligible officer.
If found to be ineligible, he would have to vacate the office with none of the benefits a retired President receives ... pension, funds for a post-presidential office, secret service protection, etc ...
Does the purchase of 2700 street tanks help formulate an answer?? When is the next Reichstag fire scheduled??
I think it is important for Historical reasons that his legitimacy always have an asterisk besides it in the History books.
Based on the research I and others have done, I am convinced that he is not a "natural born citizen" in accordance with the Understanding and Intentions of the Constitutional convention.
That subsequent legal jargon/practice obscures this point is unfortunate.
I disagree. I was an advocate for a state, (any state) to enact a law requiring Primary documents to establish eligibility to run for the office of the Presidency.
Arizona Legislature passed such a law, but Governor Idiot vetoed it. Other states attempted to pass such a law, but they were throttled in the cradle.
Had such a law been passed, it is conceivable that Barry could not come up with a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate, and therefore would not be able to get on the ballot in that particular state.
A refusal to comply with such a state law would have repercussion across the other states. There is no reasonable explanation for refusing to provide such a document other than the inability to do so. If he cannot comply with this law, it calls his eligibility into question in all the other states.
All we had to do is to get one state to pass such a law, and that very likely could have prevented him from running for office a second time, and that MIGHT have provoked enough scrutiny to demand answers.
It was a lost opportunity.
I read this as:
‘the acts done by Obama are legal - even if he is found to be a usurper.’
It may blunt the ‘everything he has ever signed is now null and void’ discussion but I do not read as nullifying the illegal act of usurpation itself.
There have been senators and others removed from office for not being eligible. That precedent exist.
“Had such a law been passed, it is conceivable that Barry could not come up with a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate, and therefore would not be able to get on the ballot in that particular state.”
Adoptees have their OLFBC sealed and archived by Order of the Court. A court ordered sealed document cannot be used in any Court or administrative proceeding after its sealed.
Obama obtained his OLFBC after it was sealed to use for geneaology purposes only. He had to edit the document before posting it online because it had language on it to indicate it was not a legal document.
The law of New Jersey is not precedent for Federal Office holders.
The law of Jersey a national principle does not make, nor the results thereof a Constitution break. Amen.
The law of New Jersey is not precedent for Federal Office holders.
The law of Jersey a national principle does not make, nor the results thereof a Constitution break. Amen.
I have a vision that includes Hand cuffs and Rope!
It could happen.
Federal lawsuits filed before, during and after Obama elected ...
Berg v. Obama
On August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat[14] and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child.[15][16][17] He alleged that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery.[18] U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”[14][19]
Bypassing the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Berg’s request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15.[20] On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction.[21] Two days later, Berg’s appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.[17] Berg’s previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008.[21] On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.[21]
On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Berg lacked standing.[22]
[edit] Essek v. Obama
On November 25, 2008, Daniel John Essek of Whitley County, Kentucky, filed a pro se federal lawsuit in the Kentucky Eastern District Court. The suit was originally filed as a Freedom of Information Act case, but was amended to a judicial challenge to Obama’s qualifications for the Office of President of the United States. Essek sought to prevent the inauguration of Barack Obama on the grounds that Obama was not a natural born citizen based on allegations that Obama was born in Kenya.[23] District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove dismissed the suit because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that Mr. Essek’s grievance was the generalized grievance of a voter, not a specific injury that would have granted him standing to sue.[24]
[edit] Kerchner v. Obama
On January 20, 2009, Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit in federal court, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, suing President-Elect Barack Obama, the United States Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama’s eligibility.[25] A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous appeal.[26] Apuzzo’s subsequent request for a hearing was denied, but the order to show cause was discharged.[27][28] On November 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[29]
[edit] Barnett v. Obama
On January 20, 2009, Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in federal court, Alan Keyes et al v. Barack H. Obama et al against Obama, with Wiley Drake as one of the named parties.[30] On July 13, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the case without prejudice on technical grounds,[31] and on July 14, 2009, Taitz refiled a “First Amended Complaint” Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama[32] on behalf of Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Cynthia Davis, Gail Lightfoot, several other local politicians, and various armed service members. Taitz sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.[33]
Two of the plaintiffs, Markham Robinson and Drake, subsequently attempted to dismiss their attorney, Orly Taitz, who refused to sign their substitution-of-attorney documents and instead filed to dismiss the two of them as plaintiffs in the case. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter denied the dismissal of Drake and Robinson as plaintiffs, and granted their motion to substitute Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation as counsel for them, refused to dismiss Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato from the case, and set a tentative trial date for January 26, 2010.[34]
At a hearing on October 5, 2009, Carter considered the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and declined to rule from the bench, saying that he would take the matter under advisement.[35] On October 7, 2009, he released a Minute Order finalizing the previously tentative dates for summary judgment motions and trial,[36] and on October 29, 2009, he dismissed the case.[37] On December 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the eligibility of the sitting president.[38][39] On June 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[40]
Citing new evidence, on August 14, 2012, Taitz filed a motion in Judge Carter’s court to re-open the case.[41]
The De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply when raised initially and the complaint is not adjudicated.
For example:
994 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999)
PRIETO BAIL BONDS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 08-96-00342-CV
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Prieto Bail Bonds appeals a judgment nisi and subsequent judgment forfeiting a $40,000 bail bond upon which Prieto was surety. We reverse and render.
Oath of Senior Judge Jerry Woodard
In its first point of error, Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture is invalid because the judgment nisi, a procedural prerequisite to the forfeiture, was defective as the judge who signed it failed to take an oath of office. We initially affirmed the trial court’s judgment by holding that the presiding judge was a de facto judge acting under color of title and the only means to challenge his authority was by quo warranto proceeding.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed our ruling and remanded the case for analysis in light of its recent holding in Wilson v. State.2 Wilson overruled the previous dictate that a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a former judge who is otherwise qualified may be challenged only through a quo warranto proceeding.3 Under Wilson, a party may challenge the authority of a trial judge by regular appeal provided the party objects pretrial.4 In this case, Prieto raised its challenge to Judge Woodard after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. Since the judgment nisi is the first notice of forfeiture given to a surety such as Prieto,5 we find that Prieto objected timely. Accordingly, we will address Prieto’s challenge to Judge Woodard’s authority pursuant to Wilson.
Facts
The Honorable Jerry Woodard was District Judge of the 34th District Court of El Paso County for seventeen years, from 1969 until 1986. He was Justice on the Eighth Court of Appeals from 1986 until April 1992. In 1992, he retired and requested assignment as a senior judge pursuant to the Texas Government Code.6 Judge Woodard took his last oath of office as a judge when he became justice of the appellate court in 1986; that term of office expired upon his retirement in 1992. He has not taken the oaths required by the Texas Constitution7 since that time.8
Pursuant to the Texas Government Code,9 the presiding judge of the sixth administrative judicial region appointed Judge Woodard to preside over the West Texas Impact Court No. 1. Judge Woodard met all statutory requirements for the appointment. No statute explicitly requires that judges appointed under Section 74 take an oath of office before being assigned to cases as visiting judges.10 We must decide, then, whether the two oaths constitutionally required of all “elected and appointed” officers apply to senior judges assigned pursuant to Chapter 74, and if so, whether the judicial acts of a judge who has failed to take the oaths are done without authority.
1. The Constitutional Requirement
Prieto contends that, when presiding over this case, Judge Woodard sat as a senior judge without taking the two oaths of office required by the Texas Constitution. Thus, having failed to fulfill the constitutional prerequisites to holding office, his judicial actions were void or voidable, including his signing of the judgment nisi forfeiting the bond in question.
...
7. Void or Voidable?
Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard’s qualifications at the trial level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done wholly without authority, and thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, and therefore merely voidable. Under either analysis, we must reverse. But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had never taken the oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29
CONCLUSION
Having sustained Prieto’s first point of error, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of Prieto. Our disposition of this point makes it unnecessary for us to reach Prieto’s remaining points of error.
No, he is not protected under this if he KNOWINGLY defrauded. He used crimes to cover up his non-eligibility. Forged docs, and who knows what else.
He is not covered by this at all. It’s only for people found out later and themselves did not know they were not qualified.
He knew, they all knew, and if he had been truthful all of us would have known as well.
His birth name, current legal name if different, place of birth, date of birth and mother and father (as well as possibly nationality) are all UNKNOWN as he has presented no non-forged documentation.
The “Why” I wrote about is the question of WHY no Congressmen, Senators, Judges and public officials speak out about the obvious issues with his abuse of power.
>>The only chance we had to remove him was through the ballotbox.<<
Read my tagline.
So fraud is legal in so far as the fraud is perpetrated by a De Facto Officer...seriously?
If Obama knowingly illegally makes a recess appointment to a labor board, and then that board passes regulations for a year while the dispute is resolved in court, and then the resolution is that the appointment was illegal and is nullified, are those illegally appointed officers still considered "de facto" and their acts considered valid?
If the answer is "yes," then there are no limits to illegalities that can be exercised while waiting for the legal system to plod to its expected conclusions.
Everyone and everything is "de facto" regardless of the outcomes. This becomes carte blanche to do anything one wants with no recourse to stop it.
-PJ
I actually see this as good news. Given that the “Constitutional crisis” that would ensue were Obama to be found ineligible and removed from office involves the question of validity of all of the law that has been created under his bogus administration, this idea eliminates an important perceived impediment to his removal.
Hard to believe you’re serious. First of all the premise in the OP is not accurate. Second, the fear of a boogie man “Constitutional crisis” is also false. Why?
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. It’s about time people opened their eyes to the fact that we in a coup. The only impediment to his ouster is either complicity in the coup or sheer cowardice.
...unless you want to quote Yoda...
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.