Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
On January 10, 2013 the Washington State Supreme Court fined Linda Jordan almost $13,000 because she legally challenged Barack Obama's use of forged identity documents: A fake birth certificate and phony Social Security Number.
Jordan wanted the original records to be produced for comparison. Why did Jordan want to see Obama’s real ID?
• The Maricopa County Sheriff Department has presented credible evidence that the birth certificate Barack Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 was forged. (Maricopa County Sheriff Department 602.876.1801) • Jordan’s own research confirmed that Hawaii law requires signatures on birth certificates to be in permanent ink. The signature of Obama’s mother, on his purported 1961 birth certificate, is partly ink and partly a computer created signature. This compilation means the signature was forged. • Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels has confirmed that the Social Security Number Obama is using was previously issued to someone else. SSN’s are NEVER re-issued.
Obama used this fake ID to prove he was eligible to be President. It got him on the ballot and into the White House. This is fraud in the least, treason at worst.
“I filed the lawsuit because I fear for America’s future. A serious crime has been committed right in front of us and federal agents turned a blind eye to it. There is substantial evidence that Barack Obama is using fraudulent identity documents. The court ignored this evidence and sanctioned me with almost $13,000 in fines for exercising my right to request an evidentiary hearing. They labeled my concerns "frivolous". Surely Americans have the right to confirm if Obama used fake ID to gain access to the White House.” Linda Jordan
http://www.obamaforgeries.com
The case is Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). Scalia wrote a 21-page concurrence denying the motion that he recuse himself. What happened was that, after the Court had voted to hear Cheney's appeal, Scalia invited Cheney to go hunting with him, and Cheney flew Scalia down to Louisiana in Air Force 2. Scalia said he wasn't required to recuse because they didn't discuss the case during the hunting trip. When the court decided the case, Scalia voted with the majority in Cheney's favor.
I have pointed to lots of evidence that you are wrong, but I do not expect to change your mind since you seem to be capable of, in Lewis Carroll's words, believing "six impossible things before breakfast."
You will not touch the 20th Amendment with a 20-foot pole, and that is where the non-political nature of this issue is revealed.
I have dealt with the 20th Amendment numerous times on this thread. It doesn't mention the Supreme Court in its text. No one has ever cited one word from the Congressional debates that led to the adoption of the 20th Amendment where the Supreme Court is mentioned. There have been twelve Presidents elected since the 20th Amendment was ratified, and none of them was ever asked to show a birth certificate to the Supreme Court or to anyone else in order to "qualify."
You don’t mind the stink. I do.
I don't smell anything off, and neither does any reputable conservative lawyer.
Let’s leave it at that.
Fair enough. Have a nice day.
Not to mention the fact that the primary goal of the Founding Fathers was to preserve the power in the people’s hands. While recognizing the possibility that the people might make a major error in their choice of President, they gave the safety valve — the awesome power to override the will of the ballot box — to Congress, the non-Executive body that was, in theory at least, the most responsive to the people, being up for periodic reelection.
The Founding Fathers were particularly careful not to put it in the hands of judges, who have lifetime appointments and are most shielded from the will of the people.
The fact that some would at this point substitute the tyranny of a politically invulnerable few for the power of the people is truly ironic.
As I said upthread, judicial activism is not a conservative value.
Ha! That is a good one. Send them a PDF of the deposit and call it good.
If they all know that there are only 3 justices who will ever agree to deal with the issue, the only reason for any of them to do anything positive on it is if the number of justices required is only 3. That would be if Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves. They never would. That totally makes the difference.
But you are evading my question. Is it cool with you if a judge confers over whether the court will try a case where her job is at stake? Are you fine with a person being her own judge in a legal trial? Yes, or no?
“But some appeals are frivolous. I have no idea if the appeal in this case was; no one has posted the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling finding it so.”
They said nothing about why they thought it was frivolous, simply that it was. You can find the ruling on their website.
excellent. what if a 16 year old was put forth by the DNC. Does the SOS accept it? No.
A sanction that was punitive and only allowed because it was based on the frivolous finding.
Congress has already set up a pecking order for who acts as President if the one who is chosen can’t fulfill the duties. I think it’s VP, then Speaker of the House, then SOS (but I’m not sure about the exact order, but it goes something like 12 people deep).
There is no “President elect” until Congress and the voters are both done. The entity which keeps an unqualified President from “acting as President” cannot be the voters or Congress. IOW, it cannot be “political”. The only reason to say that it’s not the courts is because it’s claimed it’s a political issue but it clearly can’t be, since it takes place AFTER the political process is totally done.
So who is left to do that job of interpreting and applying the Constitution when cases or controversies arise? This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution gives that duty to one branch of government. Which branch is it?
Heads up people. The judge in this case acknowledged that Jordan had standing. She had standing. Got it? I think this was only the 2nd time in over 100 cases where the judge did that.
“...that the Constitution does not require a President to submit a birth certificate.”
True but never the less Obama DID offer his birth certificate and in a very public way. His bad.
photoshop.
“If they all know that there are only 3 justices who will ever agree to deal with the issue, the only reason for any of them to do anything positive on it is if the number of justices required is only 3.”
__
Pure poppycock. As you can see from the SCOTUS docket entries I posted, there were many instances when a single justice could have granted a stay or some other remedy. All of them — including Scalia and Thomas — turned them down every time, in every case.
______
“But you are evading my question. Is it cool with you if a judge confers over whether the court will try a case where her job is at stake?”
__
Your question is based entirely upon a birther myth. There is no legal basis for the notion that a finding of ineligibility on Obama’s part would cost any of the Justices their jobs.
Look up the De Facto Officer Doctrine (http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/):
“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.”
You do not address the evidence and the fact that no evidentiary hearing has ever been held. A Judge is supposed to be a trier of fact not a regurgitater of internet gossip. I am sure you would not want a crime to be proven against you based on internet gossip and no evidence.
‘So the rule of law is upheld by the “voting public”? What do we need courts for then?’
__
Try reading the Constitution. Article III makes it very clear what we need courts for.
You’ll notice, however, that nowhere do the Founding Fathers suggest that the courts have a role to play in Presidential elections.
You admit several times that you have not read many of the pleadings or decisions talked about here and so you can not really make educated or factual statements about them. It is clear that butterdezillion has read them.
The courts play a role in the use of forged documents. Forged documents that Obama used to get on the ballot and in to the White House. It’s the forgery and fraud people. You can not even deal with the Constitutional issues because a forged birth certificate is in the way. Those are crimes that courts deal with all the time.
“The courts play a role in the use of forged documents.”
__
Right, the forged documents.
Have you been following the thread? I’ve been talking a lot about how the eligibility movement has failed to persuade enough members of the public to make a difference, and has been especially weak in persuading any members of Congress to take the actions for which they are solely empowered.
I see you wish to introduce a new subject, that of how the eligibility movement has utterly failed to persuade anyone in an appropriate branch of law enforcement that any sort of criminal activity has taken place.
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.