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.

[jbjd]

Then by all means, persuade your fellow citizens in your state to petition your federal elected officials to propose dismantling these agencies and, work with legislators from other states to support her or him. Democracy is hard work, and not just trying to get one’s way with slogans and insults to opposing views.

[jbjd]

“If you, knowing what you know, believe that this election was truly the will of the majority, then you were not paying attention. This election was a criminal conspiracy and there was nothing “free” about it. We were given NO CHOICE.”

Please be specific. Because I “know” we have no right to select any particular nominee from the major political party. This means, the parties can break their own rules as they see fit; and unless they are also breaking state rules, there is nothing prohibitive about that. We ended up with both a D candidate and a R candidate for POTUS; more people voted for the Electors for the D candidate. And nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vet the candidate for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility for office. Enough people supported BO’s candidacy notwithstanding millions of others considered he failed to establish in the record he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. All of those people who use pejorative names to refer to those of us who would question his qualifications are entitled to their beliefs. I try to change their minds with reason and evidence.

[jbjd]

You are not hearing me. The right to an education is contained in the constitutions of several states. The citizens of those states have not removed those constitutional guarantees to public education, in some cases, for hundreds of years. (Yes; several state constitutions precede the U.S. Constitution.) If the majority of citizens of a state wanted to change the provisions in the constitution, they would do so. If the majority wanted to change legislation related to home schooling; or the right of the government to intervene in the family as the result of home schooling, they would repeal old laws and write new laws. I hear your strong objections to the operation of government; but I do not hear any recognition that others just as entitled to hold an opinion, do not share your views. If they did, the laws to which you object would not be on the books.

[jbjd]

When a Defendant asks to Dismiss based on several reasons, any one of which is sufficient to get the case dismissed, the bench may dismiss on any one of these bases without implicating denial of any other basis. (I previously mentioned the problem with ‘standing’ because this is the category about which most people complained, in relation to the numerous dismissals of cases related to ‘outing’ BO’s Constitutional qualifications. Their rationale generally went something like, ‘How can the courts say a citizen has no standing to challenge BO’s eligibility?’)

[jbjd]

You don’t get it. None of the lawyers for these military plaintiffs brought a good case. Indeed; one of the lawyers claimed she was trying to get a superior officer to guarantee the military plaintiff would not face discipline for bringing the case! But unless a plaintiff is actually facing discipline, there is no issue for the courts to adjudicate, that is, there is no “case” or “controversy.” The cases should have been brought under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which allows Plaintiffs to petition the federal court for what otherwise looks like an advisory opinion, which under normal circumstances is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal court. But in this case, using this cause of action, the Plaintiff military person was saying to the court, ‘I need you to rule on my question now, while I am a Plaintiff, because without a ruling, I could take action which could make me a Defendant in a subsequent case.’ (This is all explained on my blog.)

[jbjd]

If an individual citizen is uniquely impacted by such Constitution violation then, s/he has standing. But surely you can envision what would happen to both the operation of our courts and the rights of the Defendant if, say, 100 million citizens asserted generalized standing to sue.

[jbjd]

The Constitution does not require anything more from the Electors than that they vote for the POTUS. It requires nothing more from the Congress than that they ratify the vote of the Electors. Nothing in the Constitution; and no provision of any federal or state law requires vetting of candidates as to qualification for office, Constitutional or otherwise. (This is old material that has been thoroughly covered on my blog. Perhaps if you understood more about how our government works, you could spend your energies revising laws to fix the problems you are complaining about.)

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, but in the Hollister case Judge Robertson specifically denied the attempt to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(1) and specifically found that he had "jurisdiction" because of the federal interpleader act and then dismissed based on Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Already in the appellate briefing Bauer has admitted that Robertson "assumed" standing, which is accurate. A finding of subject mattter jurisdiction does indeed assume standing. We will see the issue again it is certain because a Court of Appeals may bring it up even though there was no cross appeal, as noted in appellants' opening brief. Nonetheless the Hollister at this point is the only case in which standing was raised and to this point, it has been denied as grounds for dismissal and that decision stands unappealed from.

[danamco]

Perhaps if you understood more about how our government works, you could spend your energies revising laws to fix the problems you are complaining about.)

It seems to me that educators also have been drinking the cool-aid of naivety and polluting our young mind's skulls full of mush!

Yes, we see clearly how the government works, especially this socialistic government with an administration full of Marxist leaning Czars!!

And if you wholehearted believe "nicie" talking will bring down this affirmative action usurper in the W.H., good luck, and Happy Thanksgiving!!!

[danamco]

Perhaps here is something you should ponder over seriously this Thanksgiving???

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v19242992N68AkYBx

[Kenny Bunk]

There are two issues:

(1) BHO,Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen. He knows it, You know it. I know it, and I presume the Electors knew it. One simply must assume they know as much about the Constitution as you and I.

(2) Most being lawyers, they have a defense (of sorts). That is, they voted for him, making him the de facto POTUS. As Electors, they "may" have challenged, which they "may" construe as a discretionary act.

Their theory may well be that once installed by them, regardless of his eligibility, only they have the power to remove him. Let us say that the actions under way to petiton for a Writ of Quo Warranto are granted, and the courts, up to and including SCOTUS find him to have been ineligible. The courts cannot remove him, only Congress can, if they so desire and vote. And, choosing not to remove him, they can always say, with a very small degree of plausibility, that the "Natural Born Citizen" clause has never been defined. That's somewhat correct, but what a "Natural Born Citizen" isn't, is actually quite clear.

I truly fear that the courts and Congress will muck about until the end of the impostor's term. This is a terrible Constitutional crisis at the heart of the Separation of Powers. The courts may try and dodge the bullet. It's the easy way out. Also, if the situation approaches critical mass, BHO. Jr. just might quit ... or be allowed to quit before Congress does anything. Because, once this hits the DC Federal Courts, the cat just might be well and truly out of the bag with this guy.

Our elected representatives will have to sit up and take notice.

[AmericanVictory]

Look at the opening of the recent brief filed in Hollister v. Soetoro in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the opening argument discussing the de facto officer doctrine and study the use of Interpleader and how it led the lower court judge to concede that he had subject matter jurisdiction, which, as admitted by Bauer, the couinsel for the One, in a prior appellate fiing, assumed standing. Here's the link to the posting on FR of the brief, which has since been filed again with errata corrected.

[Kenny Bunk]

Hollister v. Soetoro

Progress. Painful, but progress.

[jbjd]

Most citizens whose opinions appear in the blogosphere had no idea that no provision of any law requires anyone to determine whether the candidate for POTUS is a NBC. Did you? They didn’t know that laws in most states, perhaps including yours, “entitle” the name of the candidate from the major political party to appear on the ballot. Did you? Most states allow a challenge to having a name printed on the ballot for any number of reasons, including s/he is not qualified for the job, which qualification is required to get on the ballot in several states. Is one of those states yours? Did you file a challenge to BO’s name being on the ballot? With whom did you file this challenge, that is, who is in charge of the elections in your state?

[Canadian Outrage]

I am astounded at your “approach” to this matter. It seems to me as tho you really don’t have your heart in making sure that your President isn’t an illegal who would dangerously have divided loyalties. I believe that was what the founders in the Constitution intended to NOT happen. CO

[Landru]

"Because, once this hits the DC Federal Courts, the cat just might be well and truly out of the bag with this guy."

Which is why I'll take "Never Makes It" for $100, Alex. LOL
Honestly, just watch what happens at that critical juncture, as sure as God made li'l green apples.

"Our elected representatives will have to sit up and take notice."

Good grief Kenny, if only it were true. LOL
I'm just not so sure.

First off, are they ours?
Could've fooled me.

Second the dandies posing as "our elected representatives" STH don't like being told what they'll have to do, Kenny. LOL
(Explaining why they either do the wrong thing, or nothing. LOL)

FWIW, I pray your prediction's right.

[Kenny Bunk]

The fight here is eventually going to wind up between two co-equal branches of government: SCOTUS and Congress, with the third, the Executive Branch/ laughing all the way to the bank.

Iam quite prepared for the (A) Petition for the Writ to fail or worse, (B) for it to succeed and then have Congress say, "So what?"

[danamco]

....”Did you file a challenge to BO’s name being on the ballot? With whom did you file this challenge, that is, who is in charge of the elections in your state?”....

Nicy talk, talk and talk again, jbjd. And I don’t need an educator to lecture or tell what to do.

You bet,....challenged Kurt S. Browning with cc to his “boss” Rino Crist who both punted the ball out of the field like all judges likewise have done.

My wife and I each then wrote letters to all our 26 electors claiming the usurper not vetted and ineligible to be on the ballot, two of them returned as non-delivery.

So where do you go from here, except this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&feature=player_embedded

[danamco]

Most citizens whose opinions appear in the blogosphere had no idea that no provision of any law requires anyone to determine whether the candidate for POTUS is a NBC. Did you?

What is it that YOU think you know better than I???

I know full well that I, as a U.S. citizen, CANNOT run for President, because I am a naturalized citizen, even more so than the impostor in the W.H. You may not know that when I was in the process of being naturalized, I had to take classes on the Constitution!!!