Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.

I firmly believe that “Nuts” means “Oh shit we’re screwed” but that is MHO.

The rocketpocket person or something like that is looking at the date of the minuets that obvioulsy have the Oct 5 date. It is clear that the minutes are a history of that days event and not a preclude of what will happen as pocketrocket would suggest.

Good - thanks.

Bump...New Keyes v Obama court doc:

"PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery. Pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the stay of discovery shall remain in place. See Dkt. 66. Should the discovery period be insufficient given the scheduling order in place, the partiesmay file for an extension of the discovery period.

The Ex Parte Motion is hereby DENIED."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818346/03118914830

It was worth the shot to try. You never know.

Should the discovery period be insufficient given the scheduling order in place, the parties may file for an extension of the discovery period.

In other words , if it ever goes to discovery, the Obama defense team can't run out the clock.

... Update.

Sheesh. I speak a couple of languages, but this is beyond me. Is it good news or not?

Its not good news or bad news. The Plaintiffs asked the judge to remove his stay of discovery. He denied it. The judge most likely won’t let that happen until he decides on what to do on the defenses motion to dismiss. If he denies the defense motion, discovery should come shortly thereafter.

We are in a holding pattern until Judge Carter decides the buck stops with him and the Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied and then discovery will commence.

This other stuff Orly is putting out is static. When you hear the words that Carter has decided on Obama’s “motion to dismiss” this case, then get serious about it.

Thanks for the translation.

The one thing that some keep pointing to is that he cast the dates as being firm now. It leads one to believe he is moving forward and he may just pocket the MTD until discovery takes place. It would avoid the appeal process for the defendants. And of course everyone knows what will happen with discovery. If that is the route the judge takes than I give him more credit than I thought I would. But we will have to wait..

Bump... new Keyes v Obama court docs (filled 10/11/2009):

A. Request for Judicial Notice
"18 U.S.C. §1346: Intangible Rights Fraud--- Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages Are not Required in Public Sector Mail & Wire Political Corruption"

B. Affidavit Expanded affidavit by Susan Daniels

filled —> filed.

he may just pocket the MTD until discovery takes place....

I was wondering if it was possible for him to do this.

If he could allow discovery then dismiss the case, I believe it would be a way for political pressure to handle the usurper and the courts avoid the issue in its present form.

It would avoid the appeal process for the defendants.

My understanding is that denial of a motion to dismiss is not appeal-able. Granting one is.

But I've not researched to see if that is indeed the case. It sort of makes sense though.

“My understanding is that denial of a motion to dismiss is not appeal-able. Granting one is.”

My understanding is that in the event of a denial of the motion to dismiss it is the order of discovery that would be appealable by the DOJ...and of course it would then be appealed.

Home page where this info came from:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26474

Posted by fadestyle on 10/15/09 10:47 AM

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

Fightin’ Words
October 15, 2009

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any

significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” - because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it - Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties - And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire - it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject - I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I - I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. ... Would [Obama’s potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it - your Senate ratifies it - you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this - and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that - and here you have a point - is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Please watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Some good work by John Carlton. 4 SCOTUS Decisions Define NBC

Carter shows his ethics: hires lawyer from Obama firm, as clerk Oct. 1st

This has to be a conflict of interest! This is just wrong!

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/carter-shows-his-ethics-hires-obama-lawyer-as-clerk-oct-1st/

I am having trouble tracking it down but I believe this hire was done a long time ago. And some judges don’t even get involved with the hiring of clerks....and it appears Carter was not involved in this hire...but I am still looking.