Counsel for DNC Services Corporation Performs 3 Card Monte for Federal Court

jbjd ^ | 11.23.09 | jbjd

[jbjd]

... Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born? Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

[MestaMachine]

FWIW, even if I agreed with your premise that people have a “right” to an education, that does not give a state the “right” to DEMAND that anyone ACCEPT an education as mandated by any state. No court, committee, agency, or anyone else, should be able to step into a person’s home and steal their children away because they decide against public education.
If YOU are, as you claim, and “educator” in an urban school, then you see first hand the destructive impact government education has had on this society. When the government can stop children in inner cities from having a choice in their own education, they are wards of the state, and no fancy multisyllable words can dispute that indisputable truth.

[MestaMachine]

Works for me!

[Freedom2specul8]

Here is the thread about denver's billboard

Here is the thread about Missouris billboard..

[MestaMachine]

There. Fixed it.

[Freedom2specul8]

Agreed.. Historically,the best education was when all education was private. They've dumbed down America for a reason. (IE:Outcome based education, writing to read style of programs..EPIC FAILURES) The less literate the public is the more control the govt has.

The tea parties are the undercurrent of the populace. It's a symptom...

[Freedom2specul8]

All for one and one for all! Mine is done.

[MestaMachine]

Government education, when not promoting the homosexual agenda, global warming now proven to be a hoax, or that competition is inherantly unfair in an oh, so fair world, goes one step further.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2394399/posts

[MestaMachine]

Never mind. It was such a horrible, obscene example of government education, the thread was pulled.

[Canadian Outrage]

Good threads Kim. CO

[Freedom2specul8]

I was just getting ready to ping CO to that thread..disgusting but it was news.

[danamco]

I am neither defending the bench nor excoriating the lawyers. I am just saying, citing the results of these cases to support your contention the courts could be corrupt, misses the point.

What I hear is that dozens of dismissals of the court cases is OK, yet every judge with a brain and sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution knows, like you and me, that the usurper is NOT a NBC and possible NOT even born in the U.S.

The last court "hired" (?) a clerk from the defendants law-office to taint the plaintiffs case after the judge has promised that he would hear this case on its merits.

He then punted the case by not hearing the merit, that is corruption in my eyes not to uphold and defend the Constitution but sidestepping it by judicial technicality.

We have been hoodwinked by a scandalous voting fraud that have our forefathers turning in their graves. So again where have all our nice "talk" brought us?

I remember clearly when Chamberlain did the same to the Brits instead of stopping Hitler in his track and spare the world from unheard sufferings.

Everybody in the media SRM, Rush, Hannity, Beck, BOR, Greta, Geraldo, Ann Coulter, Lis Wiehl and the people in the government branches becomes enablers by covering up this atrocious political scandal, and that is sure very un-American, hello!

[danamco]

must satisfy federal education requirements in order to qualify for that federal money.

And they game the system by upgrading the grates for students who have NOT earned that grate so they can collect more money!

[danamco]

I find that nothing in the public record establishes he is even a U.S. citizen, let alone a NBC.

For the first time you and I are on the same page!!!

What does the Constitution has to say about that???

[justiceseeker93]

If everyone in this country had "standing" then, individual Defendants would face countless suits.

Even you have to admit that the "standing" is a judge-created doctrine, nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution, nor the text of federal law. (The same holds true for other notions such absolute and qualified immunity, for example.)

Let's face it: the main reason why the doctrine of "standing" (as well as the others) was created in the first place (and relatively recently in the history of the judicial system, I might add) was to protect government officials from otherwise meritorious litigation stemming from the officials' abuse of the law. The "standing" doctrine, as well as several other judge-created obstacles that plaintiffs against government now have to surmount, has the added benefit to judges of serving reduce their work load.

Here we are discussing cases in which plaintiffs are asking judges to interpret and apply the NBC clause. Rather than reaching the merit of these complaints, which they clearly have a Constitutional authority to do under the powers granted to them in Article III, the judges are wimping out by invoking "standing", which, I emphasize again, has no constitutional or legislative pedigree. Moreover, in denying even opposing candidates and military officers "standing" to challenge an individual who may well have assumed the presidency unconcontitutionally and/or via fraud, they are construing "standing" so narrowly that they are effectively closing the courtroom doors to all American citizens seeking to redress the constitutional violation that has likely occurred.

If Americans are barred from the courts as a means of redressing even egregious constitutional grievances against the government, where else are they to turn?

[ml/nj]

If everyone in this country had "standing" then, individual Defendants would face countless suits.

This argument is so bogus that it makes me want to retch. There certainly wouldn't be baseless suits if plaintiffs had to reimburse defendants for costs and aggravation for suits they brought and lost.

But the notion that a citizen of the United States has no standing to bring suit to halt an egregious violation of the Constitution is absurd.

ML/NJ

[freekitty]

They are tight as ticks up there in Washington DC. Too bad they aren’t for the people.

[justiceseeker93]

But the notion that a citizen of the United States has no standing to bring suit to halt an egregious violation of the Constitution is absurd.

Agreed. Even most absurd when that citizen is a military officer, pledged to uphold the Constitution, who is complaining that his CIC may not be constitutionally qualified to be his CIC.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[AmericanVictory]

In Hollister v. Soetoro the judge below found that he had subject matter jurisdiction, and thus necessarily implicitly found standing, and then dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to lack of standing. The plaintiff is a member of the individual ready reserved and sued under the Federal Interpleader Act.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93.