Posted on 03/26/2015 3:24:52 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
An ineligible President violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, with each appointment of a principle federal officer.
The Founders authored the Appointments Clause as a safeguard for the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has stated “that we must examine the language of Art. II, § 2, cl. 2” in the context of separation of the powers. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 124–25. It has also acknowledged that “[t]he roots of the separation-of-powers concept embedded in the Appointments Clause are structural and political.” Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. at 878.
The Appointments Clause requires all “Officers” to be appointed by (1) by the President with Senate confirmation, (2) by the President alone, (3) by the Courts of Law, and (4) by the Heads of Departments.
A Department is defined as a “‘free-standing, self-contained
entity in the Executive Branch,’” such as the Department of the Treasury. Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) (quoting Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. at 915 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). Therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury is a Department Head who may constitutionally appoint “inferior Officers” with statutory permission, whereas the Commissioner of the IRS is not.
A writ of coram nobis is a request to a judge to reopen and reconsider a matter that has already been decided. The basis for the request is a claim that the decision is based on a mistake of fact, which can now be rectified.
Judiciary Act, Sec. 81-82. See also United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), holding that the All Writs section of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), gives federal courts the power to employ the ancient writ of coram nobis.
Orly Taitz Brownsville Eligibility Obama
Most likely the AUSA will suggest the USDC Judge dismiss the case sua sponte or on the court’s own motion to avoid the Appointments Clause challenge against the US Attorney, members of Obama’s Cabinet, the Archivist of the US, the Printer and other US federal officers. Orly must make sure the Judge understands this is also an Eligibility challenge which questions the authority of the District Court under Title 28 of the US Code, Title 8 of the US Code, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence after a violation of the Presentment Clause.
An assumption of the Office of the President of the United States by an ineligible President voids the US Constitution, the US Code, the authority of the principle officers and all other rules, regulations, treaties, proclamations and executive orders.
Orly Taitz Brownsville lawsuit SSN ID
Generally, the AUSA will respond with a motion to dismiss citing 8 U.S.C. 1481(b) (”Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”) A birth certificate is primary evidence of the time and place of birth only and is not evidence of citizenship. If the state of Hawaii is allowed to evidence the current citizenship status of Obama a birth certificate, then the state of Texas should be allowed to determine the current citizenshp status of a border crosser and deport non-U.S. citizens immediately.
Obama’s mother removing Obama from her US passport application by crossing his name off is an indication Obama naturalized in a foreign state. Furthermore, the school enrollment of Barry Soetoro is further evidence Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and naturalized as an Indonesian national.
And finally, the Archivist of the US is an appointee of Obama. As an ineligible President, Obama’s appointments are a violation of the Appointments Clause. The Archivist of the United States holds the US Constitution, the U.S. Code, and all federal rules and regulations in trust as evidence of US law. As an appointee of an ineligible President in violation of the Appointments Clause, the trust of the Archivist is broken. The Archivist of the US holds the immigration records of Obama as the records are more than 25 years old. The Arhivist is a key player in the conspiracy to coverup Obama’s ineligibility and must be objected to after an appointment by an ineligible President.
Moving to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3272796/posts?q=1&;page=41 for a discussion on natural born citizenship.
Google shows the office here:
Law Offices of Aissa Wayne
Attorney 29169 Heathercliff Rd # 215, Malibu, CA 90265 (310) 457-9999
Phone # same. Wondering if article true.
The de facto officer doctrine only applies to technical defects and not fundamental defects. Violations of the Appointments Clause and the Presentment Clause subsequent to a violation of the Eligibility Clause can never be justified.
Statutes developed after intense negotiations between the House, the Senate and the President may lead to technical defects in the law. If so, the defects may be corrected with subsequent legislation. Consequently, the defect is identified as technical and not fundamental because it can be readily corrected. In this case, the greater harm would be to void the actions of federal officers due to a technical error.
There are no technical errors in the Constitution. Each violation of the US Constitution is fundamental. The de facto officer doctrine “confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.” Ryder, 515 U.S. at 180, quoted in Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 77 (2003).
The Supreme Court has indicated, however, that the doctrine will not apply when the officer’s deficiency is “fundamental.” Nguyen, 539 U.S. at 79. Nguyen was reversed and remanded after the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit designated an Article IV territorial judge, the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, to sit on a Ninth Circuit panel when that court conducted a special sitting in the Territory of Guam. The President, with the Senate’s advice and consent, had appointed the Chief Judge of the Northern Mariana Islands for a fixed term, removable for cause. § 1821(b)(1) (2012).
Nguyen did not raise his Appointments Clause challenge until his case reached the Supreme Court. Any violation of the US Constitution is fundamental and not technical. The de facto officer doctrine will not apply.
The will of the majority cannot be diminished. The Eligibility Clause was intended to be applied after an ineligible President assumed the office. That’s why all previous eligibility cases have been dismissed without a hearing on the merits. The Congress and the courts are not constitutionally authorized to overturn an election even if an ineligible President is elected.
The majority of American people have voted to void the Constitution by installing an ineligible President. The US Constitution was ratified by a vote of the majority. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch were created by the US Constitution after ratification by a vote of the majority. Now, a vote of the majority has voided the US Constitution after voting in the majority for an ineligible President and eligible Vice-President. A voided Constitution voids the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch and leaves an ineligible President and eligible Vice-President to lead the country.
The Judge and the Members of Congress are merely maintaining the status quo to keep their jobs for as long as they can. There is no statute of limitations on violations of the US Constitution. Whether Obama’s ineligibility comes out in the next week or ten years from now, the US Constitution is voided by an ineligible President and only the President will keep his leadership position.
The term natural born citizen cannot be defined because it will lead to a conflict of interest with federal courts. If the term was defined, then it would no longer be a political question if the eligibility of a sitting President were challenged in court. The court is not constitutionally authorized to remove a sitting President without an impeachment in the House and a trial and conviction in the Senate. The court alone is powerless to adversely impact an ineligible President.
After an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the US by and through the will of the people, the Constitution is voided. The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch that was created by the US Constitution is voided. Only the President and the Vice President survive to lead the nation to fulfill the will of the people.
The Constitution was ratified by a vote of the representatives of the people. The Constitution can be voided by a vote of the people. Remember what Juan McCain said, repeatedly, “Elections have consequences.”
The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to prevent the American people from electing an ineligible President. An elected ineligible President cannot be denied the office. Only the Vice President is required by the 12th Amendment to be eligible to assume the office. The Eligibility Clause and the 12th Amendment may be used to prevent the Vice President from assuming office. To prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office, an amendment that state an ineligible President cannot assume the office will be necessary.
The Courts and the Congress will not allow a decision on the merits to be reached with respect to a sitting President because an ineligible President voids the Constitution. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch are created by the Constitution and are voided by the election of an ineligible President.
A convention of the states and the people to develop a new governing document is necessary.
Cancelling Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in violation of a permanent injunction issued by the District Court and affirmed by the 9th Circuit, 2000, en banc.
Before passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101 - 649, 104 Stat. 4978 (the Immigration Act or the Act), the federal district courts had jurisdiction to naturalize a person as a citizen of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) (1990). Obama’s petition for naturalization as a US citizen was granted in the District court, Central District of California (CDC), 1983. Naturalization records from the District court, CDC, have since been transferred to the National Archives Records Administration (NARA), Riverside, CA.
To complicate matters further, The District court has jurisdiction to revoke its order granting citizenship and to cancel certificates of naturalization on limited grounds. 8 U.S.C. § 1451 (1990) providing the Immigration and Naturalization Service received notice of the proposed amendment or cancellation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b) (1990). Also see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 granting the District court jurisdiction to correct or modify judgments granting naturalization.
And to further complicate matters, The Immigration Act, however, amended § 1421(a) to transfer authority over naturalization from the judiciary to the Attorney General. See Immigration Act, Title IV, sec. 401(a), § 310(a), 104 Stat. at 5038. Under the delegation of authority doctrine, the Attorney General’s authority over naturalization now is exercised by USCIS. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 310.1(b); 6 U.S.C. § 271(b)(2). Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled in an administrative proceeding in 2008. Cancelled certificates of naturalization are retained by the Department of Justice until the regulation for judicial modifications to petitions for naturalization, 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b), was repealed with an effective date Nov. 28, 2011. See Immigration Benefits Business Transformation, Increment I, 76 Fed. Reg. 53764, 53764, 53801 (Aug. 29, 2011). The repeal was the US government’s belated response to a permanent injunction issued by the District Court and affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 20, 2000, against the US federal government’s ability to administratively revoke the US citizenship of a naturalized US citizen. See Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Yes, it took eleven years for the U.S. federal government to acknowledge it could not administratively revoke the U.S. citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The Archivist of the United States is the chief executive officer of NARA and an appointee of the President. As I said, if Obama’s ineligibility is exposed, then all US federal officers in the Executive Branch, except Obama and Biden, all US federal officers in the Judicial Branch and all US officers in the Legislative Branch are a risk for professional and personal liability. Consequently, the opportunity for a federal officer at risk of professional and personal liability to expose a set of documents to prove they have willfully or unknowingly destroyed the constitutional republic is unlikely.
First and foremost it is important to understand the US federal officers declaring or dismissing cases or inquiries into Obama’s eligibility have a vested interest in seeing that Obama’s ineligibility is never exposed. It’s one thing for SCOTUS to comment on the natural born citizenship status of Wong Kim Ark or Marie Elg and an entirely different set of circumstances to make conclusions with respect to the natural born citizenship status of a sitting President or a declared Presidential candidate. For example, SCOTUS affirmed and modified the District court’s ruling in Perkins v. Elg from concluding Marie Elg was a natural born citizen of the United States to concluding Marie Elg was a natural born citizen in the United States. The distinction is important because it tells us the natural born citizenship status is fluid. Marie Elg was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth in New York. Then Marie Elg was not a natural born citizen when she was a resident of Sweden during her minority. And finally, Marie Elg was a natural born citizen when she moved back to New York to establish residency as an adult.
Similar to Marie Elg, Obama was a natural born citizen at birth. Then Obama was not a natural born citizen living in Indonesia. And finally, Obama extinguished his opportunity to recapture his natural born citizenship status by choosing not to declare an intent to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday. At the time Obama’s certificate of naturalization was administratively cancelled in 2008, the US federal government still had not acknowledged it was permanently enjoined from administratively cancelling certificate of naturalizations since 2000. The US federal government finally acknowledged the 9th Circuit’s injunction in 2011, but has not acknowledged it cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization in violation of the court’s injunction in 2008.
What about Section 3 of the 20th Amendment?
Ludwig had a different SSN according to the Social Security Death Index.
Beyond that Aissa Wayne told the LA Times she did not write the e-mail.
WOW! Thank you.
“What about Section 3 of the 20th Amendment?”
You are assuming the US Constitution, by and through the Legislative Branch, can prevent the American people, by and through the States qualifying candidates on behalf of their constituents and Electors voting on behalf of their constituents, can be prevented from electing an ineligible President. The US Constitution represents a delegation of authority from the people and the States to the federal government. All federal and state executive and judicial officers work on behalf of the American people until the American terminate their employment by electing an ineligible President. It’s extremely difficult to elect an ineligible President, but not impossible.
The Legislative Branch is only authorized to hear the counting of the votes of the Electors and object if they believe there is an irregularity in the counting of the votes. The candidate’s eligibility is not at issue when the votes are counted. For example, a Representative and a Senator are not authorized to object to counting of the votes because the projected winner will raise taxes and that will destroy the country. The only issue on the floor is the counting of the votes. Only the counting of the votes may be objected to. A President-elect fails to qualify if there are not enough votes in the majority for the President-elect.
The Electoral College system is used so that Electors have the opportunity to vote faithlessly if the American people demand an ineligible President to be their leader. The Electors are not required to vote faithlessly. The federal government cannot prevent the Electors from voting faithlessly. And finally, the federal government cannot disqualify an ineligible President if the Electors choose not to vote faithlessly to prevent the election of an ineligible President.
The American people can install an ineligible President into the Office of the President of the United States and void the US Constitution. The President and the Vice President survive a dismantling of the constitutional republic through a vote of the majority. All other federal and state judicial and executive officers are terminated.
Great to again enjoy your work and brilliance
I wonder if federal judges fight for the right to hear Orly Taitz cases, given their considerable comedic value, or if they fight to keep from having to hear Orly Taitz cases, given her lack of competence in legal matters?
The latter - all of her FOIA cases were transferred to the Central California District courts by the Texas judge.
Here’s some interesting trivia: Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen on Sept. 16, 1983 after filing a petition to naturalize as a U.S. Citizen with the USDC Central District of California.
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.