Free Republic

Sooner or later the truth will come out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I pray earnestly that it will happen in my lifetime.

“natural born American citizen” -—when I heard that from Fukino, I knew the fix was in. Let’s see, who does the Hawaii DOH fear the most? A few bloggers or the full force and fraud of the White House and U.S. gubbermint.

They made their choice awhile ago. Who needs laws when you have the Chicago crime machine backing your play.

Excellent. Sooner or later the truth will come out. Until then, he is a pretender, and ineligible to hold the office he occupies.

It’s time to take back the country.

there is absolutely NO, NO, NO, evidence whatsoever that any of this attorney time cost Obama or any taxpayers a dime.

The attorney fees are being illegally paid out of Obama's campaign funds.

Bookmarking your post.

Another quote:
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

"Not everybody. There's plenty of us on this forum who
believe that the definition of NBC that requires both
parents to be U.S. citizens is pure bunk, a fictional
definition created by birthers to be a standard of
eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet."

If it is pure bunk why is it written in the constitution?
Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>

According to the the principal framer (John Armor Bingham )of the 14th amendment, particularly
the Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) and by Mr. Obama’s
own admission he is not a Natural Born citizen.

“Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

The next paragraph of the opposition, which begins at the bottom of p. 2 and continues on to p. 3,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And...According to the Obama defenders there is absolutely NO, NO, NO, evidence whatsoever that any of this attorney time cost Obama or any taxpayers a dime. ( dripping with sarcasm.)

ping to #6

the use in the Interpleader Act of the word “obligation” in disjunctive parallel.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a lawyer out there in Freeper land who can interpret this? What's going on here?

” the use in the Interpleader Act of the word “obligation” in disjunctive parallel. We have pointed to this clear language in our opening brief.”

“Clear language?” Sorry! Not to me!

I’m still hoping for an explanation of Michael Newdow’s standing for one of his endless lawsuits.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Explanation: Down on the judicial “Animal Farm”, the piggie atheistic Marxo-fascists are more equal than others! Oink!

although raised by us in our issues presented, is, needless to say, not mentioned in this opposition

Then, dadgummit, don't say it!

,

Latest in Hollister v Soetoro

Ping.

Hollister v Soetoro updates...

Welcome to what it feels like when your country has fallen to a dictatorship.

Smells very sinister. If the Muslim Messiah was legit, this wouldn’t be happening.

(Oops! Second try.)

HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request (THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st

Check out #8737.

(Here's the link, again:)

http://letsrollforums.com/1991-michelle-obama-tried-t19873.html?s=5ca53699df84a440b9da5aa46ed1d9a4&t=19873

I summarized, but tell me exactly what the SCOTUS’ reasoning for denying Marbury in that case. What was the legal reason except that they had no power, no authority! How did Marbury NOT have standing? He did by the created definition of “standing” as it has been cited over the years, but originally.

I’d like to show you an excellent power point from the Mercer University Law Dept that addresses standing and the reasons behind it. I understand that I interjected a plain summary of why and what it is, but this shows the basic of it.

Why Standing?
To avoid possible conflicts among the branches
To maintain the integrity and unique character of each branch’s primary job
To avoid taking on, and then failing, judicially impossible tasks
The cost of standing: trying questions of sometimes-great public importance

www.law.mercer.edu/.../Topic%201%20—%20Con%20Law%20Intro%20and%20Judicial%20Review.ppt

http://letsrollforums.com/1991-michelle-obama-tried-t19873.html?s=5ca53699df84a440b9da5aa46ed1d9a4&t=19873

From the Link:

“In 1991, Michelle Obama tried to extort Sidley clients and lost her law license.

“This is all in relationship to the cap and trade, 9-11 money laundering and insurance fraud. No wonder most politicians are attorneys, they basically know how to keep themselves out of the big house. Some not so lucky like Madoff.”

Blessings
Megan

December 10, 2009

“Dear Prime Minister Harper:

“Obama Cap and Kill and the Kellogg Genocide

“Hawks CAFE is asking you why Canadian Members of Parliament have failed to stop Obama `Cap and Kill’ Dictator Game developed by the Kellogg School of Management.”

“In 1991, Michelle Obama tried to extort some Sidley clients and lost her law license.

“Ms. Obama entered Mayor Richard Daley’s Office, courtesy of the Marxist Valerie Jarrett daughter in law of Vernon Jarrett the bosom friend of Frank Marshall Davis, the Marxist pedophile mentor of Barry Soetoro (1970-1978).

“The women set up a revolving fund with the help of Kellogg alumni, CFR Chairman Peter Peterson (`47) and the Soviet spy Robert Hannsen (`71); using the new 350 CO2e Cap-and-Kill model, they re-launched Sidley’s tontine life insurance business (which client AXA/Equitable had been forced by the Armstrong Committee to give up in 1906).

“The Obamarxettes laundered dirty money from the Chicago Outfit with dues mingled from inter alia, Northwestern University faculty pensions, Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and climate researchers at the University of Victoria.

“The women forced witting and unwitting, willing or unwilling, members of CO2e.com into buying tontine life insurance – a form of protection money – which gives the victim the right to violate the 350 cap in CO2 and exhale at the standard rate of 40,000 ppm.

“On 9/11, the Obamarxists whacked 24 Canadian citizens and hundreds of CO2e.com rebels and rivals working at Cantor Fitzgerald, Espeed and CO2e.com in the North Tower and Aon Cop and Marsh McLennan re-insurers in the South Tower.

“Various widows and widowers got some of the action but the bulk of the proceeds which flowed from reinsurance claims filed through ACE in Bermuda, were shared among the ringleaders in the Chicago Outfit, government insiders, union bosses and loyal survivors.

“ACE’s unique combination of risk appetite, expertise and financial strength will allow us to assume a leadership position in the developing areas of: 1) regulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; 2) political and trade-credit risks associated with the international trading of carbon credits generated from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto protocols and its multilateral successor agreements; 3) the potential for increased global regulation of greenhouse gases regardless of whether they require enhancements to existing products or an entirely new product line approach; and 4) emerging casualty exposures such as Directors and Officers (D&O).”

“Members of the top performing hit team who survived the 9/11 tontine insurance scam, got Sidley Austin passes into the White House. We note that Obama’s campaign funds were laundered through SEIU / Acorn networks, plugged into CO2e.com revolving funds in London (Carbon Disclosure Project).

“The Obamarxists have now taken the CO2e.com Cap and Kill model to another level using lessons learned from WWI and WWII; they have used the global genocides (Kenya 2008, Katrina 2005, Rwanda 1994 and Bhopal 1984) to develop a sustainable murder-for-hire business model where the police actually profit from unsolved crimes.

“For CO2e.com’s future success, everything depends on the global adoption of Kellogg’s Dictator Game based on the `Law of Rules’ wherein a cap of 350 ppm in CO2 makes every human, a criminal whose right to breathe is at the discretion of Dictator Obama.

“Will Canadian Members of Parliament all kneel like slaves?

“Please explore the links herein and contact us if you still don’t understand what we mean.”

http://www.captainsherlock.com/
http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html
http://www.captainsherlock.com/101.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/

Yours sincerely,

Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971, Forensic Economist fbi@usdoj.gr or avalonbeef@msn.com 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot, 23,000 hours of safety, Tel: 218 329 6190

David Hawkins hawks-cafe@hotmail.com Tel: 604 542-0891 Former oil industry operating engineer; Blow-out specialist, safety officer, trouble shooting. Decades of experience in explosives, incendiaries, radioactive materials and 12-D simulations.
.........................................
Notes: Northwestern University Transportation Center (1954) – Directed by Professor Hani Mahmassani. Secure tunnel into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Kristine Serco Marcy or Kellogg School of Management (KSM) VPNs to move snuff-film cameras, weapons, money and oath-takers through FC-KU (Femme Comp Inc on KU-band) crime scenes.

You gave as the reason it was created: “It has nothing to do with who is ‘harmed’, just a weaselly way for the justices to not have to make a very public showdown with the other two branches.”

That does not begin to be correct.

Ha!

Obama’s new slogan ‘I can’t spare a dime, but you can’

Bump.

Obama’s new slogan ‘I can’t spare a dime, but you can’

It DOES enable class action lawsuits b/c we will all have standing.

True, once the ink is dry on the thing let the lawsuits begin. It will be a cold day in hell when the government thinks they can force me to buy into their crap. If enough people walk it's over with.

Rememeber barry said he found his BC in his book? obozo bigger scam than Madoff!

I agree. I don’t think the unConstitutional grabbing of power by this CONgress and this Administration gives entry to questioning Barry about his birth certificate.

It DOES enable class action lawsuits b/c we will all have standing.

Glad to hear that and I hope Rush is making plans.

The standards must fluctuate wildly because the A.C.L.U. has been getting their cases heard for years.

Dead on.

The standards must fluctuate wildly because the A.C.L.U. has been getting their cases heard for years.

You are talking about a separate concept, if the court did give standing, about the corn cobbing of America by Nebraska, it would be against the law not against the far fetched stupid ideal about obamma.

I’m still hoping for an explanation of Michael Newdow’s standing for one of his endless lawsuits. Apparently simply being offended is enough for a single person if the issue is the right one.

I understand the technical definition of “standing”, I’m giving you the reason it was created several centuries ago.

BO’s X-mas cheer:

“Change you can believe in. And believe me when I say that none of the change in my pocket is going to help my hut brother. I thought about sending him a card, but I just don’t have the time.”

An Update on Barry’s Hut Brother

Sep 15, 2009 ... Have we got an update on that? I think he’s still in the hut, right? Hut, hut. “Hut, Sweet Hut,” Obama’s brother still in the hut. ...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091509/content/01125110.guest.html

The problem is still “standing”

The instant problem is that the harm is so broad, the courts would want it resolved by political and electoral means, not judicial.

We will not get standing to debate the constitutionality of a national bill by an appeal of one person.

Sorry, but that's the law. Our best bet for a person to get standing is still a military officer ordered to kill (an enemy) where, if the ultimate orderer (POTUS) is not legally emplaced, the officer could be charged with war crimes.

“Standing” is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

Equal protection under the law shows standing. Some states getting excused from Medicare tax increases violates equal protection.

Good to see you posting, US.

There was a big discussion of this on the Glenn Beck radio show today. The takeaway is that the bill has to be signed into law before any suit happens.

A buncha states are contemplating lawsuits on 10th and 14th amendment grounds.

Merry Christmas. ‘Pod

That is the growing resentment and feeling in this country.
We have two broken parties, and each one has their hand out asking to prevent the other from doing this and doing that, while neglecting the citizens of this country. Over 60% do NOT want health care reform and they toute one or two sad-sack stories to cram things on the people. Look at your e-mails from the DNC and RNC, both pan-handlers while people are going down the toilet. What is needed to clean house and get rid of all of the ones that have failed to do, their sworn duty, that not only includes Congess, but the Judicial branch as well. They have failed and they need to held accountable. Repeal all their benefits, and let them live under the laws they enact. Plain and simple.

Is this another tin foil hat conspiracy theory. Are you the old fellow in the barrel that was throwing the paint balloons at the sign in Vegas?

I’m sorry, but your defintion of “standing” is legally totally incorrect.

twice

STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person

must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

Talk about quick! Do they pay you extra to work these threads on Christmas eve?

Standing is apparently an arbitrary concept. How many times has Michael Newdow managed to get his cases against America into court based on far less “standing”.

Yes I would believe this will make a deeper hole for Obama to dig himself out of.

You are wrong, standing means you need to show you have been harmed.

It seems to me that no court could argue that a person does not have "standing" to defend themselves from someone who pretends to assume the power of life and death decisions over them.

Seems to me you have no ideal what you are talking about. Do you just set around and dream up these hair brain concepts. What in the world do you think the terms commander and chief mean.