Click the pic to fix.
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
Weird smell in here....
The way somebody would stop them from “acting as President” is by finding that they didn’t qualify and enforcing the 20th Amendment. The people who have the Constitutional authority to settle cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution are the judiciary. Who else can order a particular legally-restraining action?
And we can tell from context that this is who HAS to do it anyway, because in order to find that the “President elect” didn’t qualify there has to be a President elect, and by the time that is done, the voters and Congress have already done their jobs.
If Congress was the entity that finds that the “President elect” wasn’t qualified, then they’d have to certify as the electoral winner a person that they knew didn’t qualify. Why would they do that if the certification process is supposedly how they would get rid of an unqualified person? If the electoral certification was the process by which an unqualified candidate was weeded out - by refusing to accept electoral votes for an unqualified candidate - then an unqualified candidate would never become “President elect”. To have a safety net AFTER the electoral certification means that even if Congress CAN catch a disqualified candidate in that way, they are not the ONLY ones who can catch a disqualified candidate.
And the whole idea of judges not being able to overturn a national election on Constitutional grounds but Congress being able to is totally absurd. When has Congress ever been able to overturn ANYTHING on Constitutional grounds? That is simply not their job. That’s what we have a judiciary for, as is expressly stated in the Third Article.
I think I’ve said this at least 5 times already. If you haven’t gotten it by now you never will. You’re a waste of my time, troll. The only reason to say anything to you is for the sake of any lurkers but I think you’ve probably sufficiently smoked/stunk up the place so there aren’t any lurkers any more.
And Justice Thomas doesn’t buy the argument either, because he clearly stated that they are “evading” the question of Presidential eligibility - not that they CAN’T take it up. Whether it was couched as a joke makes no difference; the fact is that they ARE evading this issue. Everybody knows it. And it’s not because the facts aren’t clear enough. In Leo Donofrio’s case, he challenged the placement on the ballot of Roger Calero, who is known to have been born outside the US to non-citizen parents.
I think people should be asking why they are evading an issue that is so central within the Constitution. How many times do the words “eligible” or “qualified” come up in the Constitution in reference to the President or Vice President? How many other requirements come up that often? Free press, for instance, comes up once. Right to privacy comes up once, and only in the context of being protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. If it’s mentioned in the Constitution at all it is mandatory for the judiciary to deal with it when a case or controversy arises, but when it’s mentioned, what, four times? That’s a heckuva lot more significant than whether tobacco companies can be sued. And SCOTUS knows it. There is another reason they are not taking up this issue, and it has nothing to do with the issue itself being non-justiciable, insignificant, or undocumented.
You don’t make a scathing argument for a case you could never even get to be taken up by the other justices.
If we the people are saying to each other, “This is a dead-end issue because the Supreme Court will never do anything about it”, then so are the justices who know that Sotomayor and Kagan are blocking them from ever being able to do anything about it. Instead, Justice Thomas said that they are “evading” the issue.
IOW, you’ve got it straight from Justice Thomas. No mind-reading necessary.
That is PERFECT.
That should be sent to every Congress-critter, every SCOTUS justice, every media owner and personality...
They pledged everything they had in order to birth this place of freedom and the rule of law, and this generation is throwing it all in the trash. I am sick from watching it while all the efforts of patriots are held at bay by the corrupt machine and/or communist-Islamist coup that has taken over the country - like a giant lifting up a dangling little mouse and laughing that it can’t get out of its grasp.
If anything has been decided it has been decided without ANY EVIDENCE. The HI state registrar has now TWICE legally confirmed that the White House long-form is a forgery, and has confirmed that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid. If any one of those court cases had looked at evidence they would have immediately seen that. Any decision these judges have made is based solely on “judge’s knowledge” apart from any lawful (NOT ex parte and/or forged) evidence.
IOW, the US is Iran. I’m sure you’re patting yourself on the back over that.
Some of us are disgusted by it and wanting to get America back. That’s what Free Republic is supposed to be about. You don’t belong here, Nero. You belong on the rooftop fiddling while the city burns. It’s exactly what you’re doing, but this is not supposed to be the place that you do it.
Round of Applause!!!!
Do you know of any plaintiff in any Obama eligibility civil suit who has provided exhibits or statements in their pleadings informing the judge that the Hawaii Registrar has refused to confirm that Barack Obama was born in that state? I know of no such evidence coming before any judge. Judges can only rule on what is before them.
If plaintiffs in lawsuits don’t research why Triers of Fact have ruled the way they have ruled in previous, similar lawsuits, they cannot learn how to overcome any deficiencies of those previous rulings. There have now been nearly 200 Obama eligibility rulings since 2008. It is essential to dispassionately analyze why judges have ruled the way that they have.
Let me give you one example: dismissals on standing. Because it was the first eligibility lawsuit due to the fact that it was triggered by the New Hampshire Primary in 2008, Hollander v McCain in New Hampshire was the first presidential eligibility dismissal for lack of standing. Senator McCain’s attorneys and the Republican National Committee’s attorneys argued that Fred Hollander, a Republican primary voter, did not have standing to challenge McCain on the grounds that McCain was ineligible due to his birth in Panama. When the federal judge in New Hampshire agreed with McCain and the RNC, we saw a rash of further dismissals for lack of standing. Some conservative judges who dismissed on standing grounds spelled out precisely what the requirements of standing are. It was like they were saying “hint, hint, here’s who you need.”
I am convinced that the absolute best plaintiffs to guarantee overcoming
standing objections were and are any combination of John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and/or Paul Ryan, the folks who were directly injured by Obama’s election. They don’t have to be the only plaintiffs, they could be joined by every American constitutional patriot such as yourself. But I believe that they needed to be the LEAD plaintiffs.
I would love to see McCain, Palin, Romney & Ryan v Obama. Judges then could not be thinking “why aren’t the people who were denied the office parties to this action?”
“I would love to see McCain, Palin, Romney & Ryan v Obama.”
__
It seems to me that you can add those four to the long list of people who could have advanced the ineligibility cause but demurred because, like so many others, they were not convinced by the birther arguments.
On the other hand, I suspect that Butterdezillion would tell you that all four were certain of Obama’s ineligibility but chose not to make an issue of it. She knows that stuff because she can read minds.
You are ignoring what I said in my post #246 (which you responded to without quoting). I agree with you that lawyers and judges know the law better than dirt farmers. What I said was this:
...and yet you, who claim no legal training, have decided that every court in America, from SCOTUS on down, is wrong, and in fact so wrong as to obviously be corrupt? Did it ever occur to you that the reason every judge in America and 99.99% of all lawyers-- including prominent conservative constitutional lawyers who are challenging Obama on health care and term limits-- disagree with you is perhaps because you're wrong? Did that thought ever cross your mind for a second?
I await your response (unless you're just trolling).
The Supreme Court justices know exactly why the challengers haven’t filed suit. So does every media person in this country. It’s the same reason the objector in KS withdrew his objection, except on a totally different scale, with the threats proven to be serious.
Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs died suddenly shortly after saying they would file a petition at the DNC Convention challenging Obama’s eligibility. I believe we’ve now got affidavits from Hillary insiders who heard Bill Clinton say that he knows Obama is not eligible, and the higher ups said the plan had always been to challenge it at the DNC Convention. Who do you think “Recreate ‘68” was supposed to scare away? Ultimately even the deaths of Gwatney and Tubbs weren’t enough to stop Bill and Hillary; the Soros goons had to threaten to kill Chelsea - according to what top sources told Bettina Viviano. But they didn’t stop Phil Berg - a Hillary supporter - from filing a lawsuit in COURT. And the judge was treating that case seriously until mid-October when he suddenly did a 180 and dismissed the case for “lack of standing”.
We also know that the media heads were threatened in October of 2008, around the same time. Doug Hagmann says he has a signed statement from at least one media member who told him of threats made to the media. Hagmann gave details regarding the evidence he had on a radio show with Laurie Roth (one of the plaintiffs in one of Orly’s later suits, IIRC). Inside sources tell me that Hagmann dropped the issue when one of his informants was killed, because he wanted to protect an especially vulnerable source. I reported this info to Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse and he confirmed that she was not the only one in danger and that she had fled the country in fear for her life. Hagmann said the media people he spoke to were flat-out SCARED.
And we’ve seen open shenanigans with the media also. Andrew Breitbart, who hadn’t seen a doctor in the past year (according to the coroner citing his medical records) and who had no prescription drugs in his body at the time of death, dropped over dead less than 5 hours after telling Sheriff Joe that his evidence of fraud and forgery were good. Rush Limbaugh received a package alluding to 2 famous assassinations the same day, which his staff treated as a bomb threat. Both Breitbart’s death and Limbaugh’s perceived threat were on the day of Arpaio’s press conference. (I won’t bother to go into the poisoning death, shifting stories about the poisoning death, and other shenanigans surrounding the coroner’s office the day before and the day of the Breitbart autopsy’s public release; I’ll just say that the autopsy made no note of the coroner even CHECKING for signs of assassination).
Justice Thomas said flat-out that they are “evading” this issue. A Republican primary candidate for 2012 has said nobody will touch eligibility because everybody knows it goes WAY TOO DEEP. If that was Romney, then we know why he didn’t challenge. If it was Michele Bachman or Paul Ryan we know why Congress didn’t challenge anything. They know there is deep, deep doo-doo going on and they are afraid of what would happen if they addressed it.
How many threats and deaths does it take before people start believing there is a reason for the mess we’re in that has nothing to do with “standing” or any other legal argument. Nobody will touch it because they know the issue goes WAY TOO DEEP. Their first clue might have been the dead bodies piling up...
It doesn’t matter if they had that in front of them. They could not rule Obama eligible based on a PDF posted on the internet. Onaka has confirmed that there is no legally-valid BC that any of those judges could have seen, nor any attorney for Obama, nor Jess Hennig and Joe Miller, nor ANYBODY.
You claim that these judges ruled Obama eligible. I don’t think that’s what they ruled. I think they ruled that it’s nobody’s business whether he’s eligible or not. If they ever DID rule Obama eligible, they did so SHEERLY on ex parte “evidence” (in Iran they call it “judge’s knowledge”, which is acceptable under sharia...), because Hawaii’s got nothing that’s legally probative.
Larry Klayman is the attorney who knows Onaka confirmed that Obama’s HI BC is non-valid. But even though it was admitted that Voeltz had standing in Florida, the judge cut off that case before Klayman had brought it up. So again, you see that the issue isn’t standing at all. Someone guaranteed standing was STILL thrown out. Like Linda Jordan.
And as I explained in the post right before this one, anybody with at least half a brain knows EXACTLY why: threats that go WAY TOO DEEP for anybody to be willing to open that can of worms.
The best attorneys know how to get people who don’t want to file suit to do so; for the good of the greater cause, for the good of the nation, to uphold important constitutional principles.
I doubt if any of the four best prospective plaintiffs were even asked to take up the cause and there was certainly no pressure applied to them from within the party. If all else fails, you get the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson, et cetera to purchase their cooperation and participation.
When a judge looks at an eligibility lawsuit and doesn’t see the losing candidates as plaintiffs or even the losing political party, what is a judge to think?
Of course. That’s what I do when I weigh evidence.
But nobody has told me how Congress could be the entity who determines the President elect has not qualified once they’ve finished their job by certifying that he IS the “President elect”.
It’s sort of like the atheist argument that the universe created itself. If the universe wasn’t in existence it couldn’t do anything, including creating itself.
Nobody here has been willing to give me a way that Congress even CAN be the entity which acts between the electoral certification and inauguration, to rule the President elect unqualified or to order him to not “act as President”. Much less that the 20th Amendment DEMANDS that it only be Congress.
Furthermore, you guys are arguing that the courts CAN’T “overturn an election”. Yet out the other side of your mouth you’re saying that they could, if McCain had asked them to...
See, it doesn’t matter to me whether it is the Emperor’s advisor or whether it is a little boy in the crowd who makes a statement. If the statement makes no sense logically, I’m not going to accept it as correct. Truth matters to me.
Is this before, or after, the judge sees the pile of dead bodies in the line to file suits?
BTW, Nero Germanicus, you seem to be very familiar with the MDEC case. Do you know how the Mississippi lawyer, who was well-acquainted with handling politicians’ lawsuits, came to have a lawyer from CA specializing in business lawsuits do the filing work for him on the MDEC case? How did Tepper get brought into Mississippi?
2008 Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party Alan Keyes filed suit and his appeal went up through the state appeals courts to the US Supreme Court. Mr. Keyes remains alive and well and on the attack against all things Obama every day of his life.
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.
