Seattle Homemaker Fined $13,000 For Doing Background Check On Obama

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

My response to that question (Basically, have I ever considered that I’m wrong?) touched on the 20th Amendment thing because that’s what we’ve been talking about here, and I pointed out that nobody has given a plausible way that the 20th Amendment could be referring to a responsibility of Congress when it talks about action taken after Congress was done certifying the election.

I want to address the other major thing I’ve claimed, and add that my first clue of the legal strength of my conclusion (that Onaka had confirmed a non-valid Obama BC to Bennett) was when I saw that the MDEC attorneys BY THEIR ACTIONS agreed with my conclusion. I’ve since had 3 other lawyers tell me that my conclusion is solid. Two of them having based their cases on the BC actually being valid.

When Onaka responded to Kobach to confirm that the information on the White House image was NOT “identical to” the information on the HDOH record, that served as ANOTHER cross-check for my conclusion.

I have a scientific epistemology. I go where the evidence takes me. Two consistent confirmations from Onaka, the verbal agreement of 2 attorneys who were initially hostile to the conclusion I had reached, and the actions of the attorneys for MDEC showing their understanding of the same thing I understood... is some pretty strong consensus to support my interpretation of what the actual statutes say.

I don’t believe somebody just because they claim authority. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - almost the only argument used by the “after-birthers”. To this date I have heard no argument that actually works with the statutes in question (just like I heard no argument that actually works with the 20th Amendment). If 99.9% of lawyers would think what I’m saying is bunk, then surely at least one of them could come up with something that at least WORKS with the statutes, request, and responses.

I had a very animated “discussion” (lol) with the counsel for NE SOS John Gale. Once we got past his denial that Bennett had even ASKED for verification of Obama’s gender, DOB, city of birth, island of birth, and parents’ names, his points were basically that Nebraska doesn’t have to care what Hawaii told Arizona, that even if the paperwork was all fraudulent the name would be placed on the ballot because Nebraska statute doesn’t say the filing papers have to be LAWFUL (non-fraudulent and non-perjurious), and Obama could still (eventually) be determined to have been born in Hawaii if there were birthday cards showing his address or something (stuff that would have to be looked at by a court in order for birth facts to be determined - but that nobody outside a judicial or administrative process could use to make a LEGAL determination).

He couldn’t refute what Onaka confirmed so he had to tell me why it doesn’t have to matter to his job. Pass the buck. That’s the most I’ve been able to get out of ANY of the 99.9% of lawyers that you say disagree with me. That doesn’t cut it.

I believe the judges that could not lawfully deny standing but threw the cases out anyway were either threatened, or else just plain wrong.

I believe the judges that threw out cases because it was “unjusticiable” because it was too early if Obama wasn’t inaugurated and too late if Obama was inaugurated are either morons or believe that the Constitution has elements which can never be enforced (which opposes one of the foundational principles of Constitutional interpretation).

I believe the judges that claimed that Congress alone can judge the eligibility of candidates on state ballots (or enforce state fraud laws, as the judge in WA would have to claim) contradict the Constitution, and the Congressional Research Service attorneys agree with me.

I believe that anyone who says that Presidential eligibility cannot be ruled on by the judiciary because it is a “political issue” is ignoring the 20th Amendment - where it is clear that somebody besides the voters or Congress would have to rule that the “President elect” had failed to qualify. I believe they shoot themselves in the foot by also claiming that the courts would have decided these issues if the right person had filed a lawsuit.

I believe that any judge who ruled Obama eligible without being given any LEGAL evidence of it belongs in Iran where sharia allows “judge’s knowledge” to replace evidence. There is a reason that ex parte communications (such as website postings, Twitter, a biography, etc) are not allowable in court. There is no cross-examination for those things and they can easily be forged, as Obama’s short-form and long-form both were).

I believe that those who say that the judiciary cannot overturn the results of an election ignore the 20th Amendment and every judicial challenge to the Constitionality of laws that have been passed.

The stuff I’m saying is no-brainer type stuff. If it was any issue but this one, there would be no dissent. Which is what makes so many of us feel like the America of today is in a parallel universe from everything America has been in the past. If we were in Iran, Malihi’s decision would be ho-hum; it belongs there. It doesn’t belong here. To have so many people who supposedly believe in the Federal Rules of Evidence argue in favor of Iran-style “evidence” being fine in that GA case is alarming. Either they have been bought or blinded on this particular issue, or we’ve got a heckuva lot of hypocrites running our “justice system”.

What “conservative lawyers” are you talking about? Mark Levin? He is also a media member and as such HAS been threatened. And I’ve only heard that he opposes the 2-citizen-parent argument, not that he says anything about standing, justiciability, etc. Who else are you talking about?

What, specifically, was so great about the speech? I.e.: what were the greatest lines/moments, and what made them so outstanding?

You can go read all the news stories which talked about it and analyzed it as well as I can. You're missing my point. After the Republican Convention, who did people talk about? That's easy: Clint Eastwood. He stirred up the Republicans. Clint's speech was effective. After the Democratic Convention, who did people talk about? Bill Clinton. He was effective. Democrats discounted Clint's speech, but that doesn't change the fact that it was effective. Republicans equally had issues with Clinton's speech. That doesn't change the fact that it changed the whole excitement level of the Democratic Convention. Clinton's speech exceeded expectations. Any Convention would love to have their base stirred up as much as Clinton did the liberal base. Why would Clinton give such a stirring speech if he disliked Obama and wanted him to fail?

In addition to wanting Chelsea to live and maybe wanting Soros to support Hillary in a 2016 Presidential run, Clinton may also have known there was deep crap going on in Benghazi and the entire Middle East (US arming terrorists) that Obama could have turned on Hillary as a fall guy any time he wanted.

Plus, I think both Bill and Hillary are aware of the weapons at the disposal of the person who occupies the White house, if you know what I mean. If they’ve got dirt on Petraeus and Allen (which they can get by snooping through communications without any legal justification whatsoever) then they’ve got dirt on Hillary and Bill too.

I don’t think anybody doubts that the Clintons hate Obama, or that Obama hates the Clintons. He only had Hillary as SOS in order to try to get Hillary’s supporters to tolerate him, and to keep his enemy close at hand where he could publicly throw her under the bus if she ever acted like she’d step out of line. Same thing with Biden. He had to be VP because he knew what had happened to clean up Obama’s passport file at the Passport Office, since he was the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee which oversees the State Dept. If Obama was ever ousted and Biden became POTUS, Congress would immediately have grounds to impeach Biden for treason, since he knows all about Obama’s ineligibility and was bought off by the VP position.

You’d have to have a liberal mind set to be motivated by that Bubba Clinton speech and I’m pretty certain no one posting here wants to go there.
Liberals are all about symbolism and the symbolic hugs between The Usurper and the Impeached One were all that mattered to the left. After the Democratic Convention, Barry went from 82% support among registered Democrats to 91% support. He ended up getting exactly 91% of the registered Democrat vote. Romney got 7% of the Democrat vote and other candidates got 2%.
The lines from the actual speech that got the biggest applause were:
“One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army, and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. Now he, President Obama, appointed several members of his cabinet, even though they supported Hillary in the primary. Heck, he even appointed Hillary.”

So it was a “great” speech w’out a single great line you can cite? Really? That’s pretty embarrassing even by liberal standards.

Clinton is a washed out, sick-looking lying pervert. Sure he stirred up the base. But the Dem base also got stirred up about being forced to add a single reference to God back into their platform. Stirring up the prog base is not hard. You just push their anti-conservative buttons and they go haywire. The fact that Stain-on-the-Blue-Dress-Bill got them stirred up says more about their moral squalor than about the greatness of his speech.

Unless, of course, you can cite ‘Bill’s’ two or three greatest lines and explain their greatness. Of course you cannot, but here’s a second opportunity anyway. Go hog wild.

Or, if you can’t find two or three good lines in the entire speech, how about just one? Surely it couldn’t be a ‘great’ speech sans even a single great line...could it?

“What “conservative lawyers” are you talking about? Mark Levin? He is also a media member and as such HAS been threatened. And I’ve only heard that he opposes the 2-citizen-parent argument, not that he says anything about standing, justiciability, etc. Who else are you talking about?”
__

Well, remember, I was quoting LL — it was his question. He says he’s a conservative lawyer himself, so perhaps he can weigh in on the sources of the legal opinions he’s been hearing.

But I’m sure you’re aware of the identities of the attorneys who have taken up the birther cases, and I think it’s fair to say that there are no recognized constitutional authorities among them.

As far as you know, have any attorneys at all championed your theory concerning the 20th Amendment?

As far as I know none of the eligibility attorneys are willing to look at the 20th Amendment as a basis for action because there would then be questions as to whether Obama IS the President but just can’t perform any Constitutional duties.

Article II says that no person shall be eligible to the Presidency if they don’t meet the requirements, so the question is how somebody could ever pass from being the President elect to actually being the President at noon on Jan. 20th without ever being eligible to the Presidency.

I think the difference is that if it is recognized that Obama couldn’t qualify as the President, then his ticket can’t have won, meaning that Joe Biden didn’t win either. I’m not sure how that all works.

What I do know is that the Constitution forbids Obama from “acting as President”.

What further complicates things is that Dick Cheney did not obey the statute regarding how the electoral vote was to be certified. He didn’t call for objections as required; I don’t know if Biden obeyed the law this last time around or not. I believe one of the cases said that because the electroal certification was not done lawfully it cannot be binding. I think that was the suit that was dismissed with the claim that 4 years’ worth of reservist’s pay doesn’t meet the $500 minimum value to make a “case”. I say if that is so, the military should be sued for paying less than minimum wage... It just goes to show that if they can’t find a lawful excuse they’ll just make stuff up out of thin air.

or believe that the Constitution has elements which can never be enforced (which opposes one of the foundational principles of Constitutional interpretation).

The Constitution has many elements which can't (or won't, the result is the same) be enforced by courts; their enforcement is left to elected branches. The Supreme Court discussed this in cases like Flast v. Cohen and United States v. Richardson (1974). I remember no more divisive issue in this country in my lifetime than the Vietnam War, but no court would ever consider any of the legal challenges to the war. Remember what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist about the judiciary being the "least dangerous branch."

Who has standing and authority to cause the enforcement of the 20th Amendment when a President elect (the certified winner of the electoral vote) has failed to qualify?

The judiciary can always define terms out of its jurisdiction. The Vietnam War, for instance, was not a war. We haven’t had a “war” since WWII. We’ve had “conflicts”, which is how they get out of the Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war. To take on that issue the judiciary would have to define “war”, as distinct from a “conflict”. As long as the political powers are willing to let a “conflict” involve multiple other countries, etc there was no reason to even call WWII a war.

Right now, given the precedents that have been set, somebody who is not even the President (as per the Terry Lakin case) could issue lawful orders to blast all of Europe and Africa to Mars without even asking Congress about it. And as long as they were willing to say that it was just a “mere flesh wound” (a “conflict” and not a war) no judge in the country would have to even look at it.

We are literally lawless. Because we have given up the language and we’re given over to post-modernism where truth doesn’t really exist. We’re hopeless. This country is dead. Trying to make sense out of this lawless world is about like trying to sew clouds. There’s no integrity so everything’s just “flexible” - IOW, whoever is in power does whatever they want and unless we’re willing to shoot back he’ll get away with it. The only future for a society like ours is tyranny followed by annihilation. We’re no longer either worthy or capable of a free society.

So your definition of greatness is: ‘stirred up the liberal/prog/Dem base’.

That is a liberal’s definition of greatness. And that was just my point from the beginning. Only a liberal would call ‘Bill’s’ speech possibly ‘the greatest convention speech ever given’. A “great” speech w’out a single great line - but it gave liberals a thrill.

Bill Clinton, who has waged his own personal war on women for decades, could give liberals a thrill reciting the phone book. If he had said, before the entire Dem convention, ‘You’d better put some ice on that’, the applause would have been thunderous. Yet you and others call his speech “great”. That is modern liberalism in a nutshell, sad but true.

The judiciary can always define terms out of its jurisdiction.

...and they always have. Marbury v. Madison (1803), while it's remembered as the case which established the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress, was also a case in which the Supreme Court held that Thomas Jefferson had acted illegally but there was nothing the Court could do about it. Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, which I meant to cite in my last post but missed, was decided in 1923, and established the principle that no one has standing to object in court to Congress's spending money on unconstitutional purposes. United States v, Schlesinger, which I did mention in my last post, found another part of the Constitution to beyond the power of the courts to enforce. Somehow, the Republic has survived those decisions, and I suspect it will survive Obama's presidency as well.

Its frustrating to read the following quote from Row and realize that the same logic is absent for us conservatives. >>>>

“But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.”

Why do some of us accept this blatant double standard while our nation is being torn apart? Why do not we insist on using the same logic that they always use do to promote their socialist agenda. Here is an example .... READ ON>>>>>

But when, as here, an election result for President is a significant fact in the litigation and the normal election cycle is so short that the winner will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If such a result is beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Elections for the highest office in the land effect the foundation of the our nation. If our republic is to survive, eligibility requirements and the rule of law will always be with us. This action provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.”

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.