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
Thanks for the ping.
I’ll have to think about this.
Because courts hear cases, which means that the courts can decide legal issues only in the context of resolving a dispute between two parties that the court can remedy. Since the administration of George Washington (literally), the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that courts cannot issue "advisory opinions" to other branches of government.
The judicial power extends to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. I would consider the President or President elect to be “other public ministers”. Cases affecting those people fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In addition, there are “controversies to which the United States shall be a party”. Who exactly is “The United States”?
Thanks for posting/pinging this update.
The Honorable Judge Sanders has always been, in my mind, truly honorable. A good, good man.
Not going to happen for a variety of legitimate reasons. For one the FBI has databases that might do that, but only if the persons are suspects. In the case of AQ they had databases at the CIA for that, but only for foreigners. Those databases are now at NCTC where they have both foreign and domestic individuals but only if the domestic are suspects.
What you seem to advocate is an all-powerful government prior to 9/11 while obviously realizing that would an incredibly bad idea with this administration. There are two unrealistic assumptions you are making: 1. the government has everyone in a database and 2. the database actually can sort out the bad guys from the good guys without false positives. The first assumption may be true, we don't really know anymore, especially in the current admin. The second will never be true. What will happen instead is false positives like what you see in the movie Brazil.
Do you assume that Fast and Furious never happened because it would have to be a government conspiracy?
A decent question, but that operation left significant real world evidence that it took place. That evidence was mostly suppressed until our agent Brian Terry was killed. The suppression of the evidence and the operation itself was a govt conspiracy until the evidence was revealed. Now all parties acknowledge it took place although there is disagreement on the details. So there is no longer a conspiracy of silence but still somewhat of a conspiracy or collusion between the media and the perps to try to keep it out of public discussion.
Very simple. If the foreign interests who I include people like Soros and the Islamists and others coalesce around a candidate, it would be in their best interests that the candidate be a squeaky clean American from Nebraska, not a shady half foreigner. That's one of the reasons I equate Obama to Carter even through Obama is much more damaging. The two are both anti-American and Obama is merely the culmination of a long process of the media and foreign interests undermining the values and strength of this country.
We can’t just do the political talk. We have to expose the danger of the mafia that put a foreign enemy combatant into our White House, so he has access to purge the military of patriots, kill American citizens, shut down the internet, take all our medical records and deny certain people medical care, arm our enemies, l
You are right and wrong. Right in the sense that the political dialog is controlled by the Evil party, the Stupid party, the Enemedia and foreign interests. None of those groups is going to do the right thing for America except a few members of the Stupid party and then mostly by accident. But on the other hand we cannot cling to fringe theories that lack evidence when they don't even jive with the way the foreign interests would take over (e.g. by giving us a series of Carters to undermine our foreign policy and weaken our domestic economy (Carter did both of those nicely).
What you don't seem to understand is that the conspiracy you cling to does not have explanatory power for the takeover of America. The takeover like I said is with the combined power of the Stupid party acquiescing to the Evil party one step at a time. The purges, killings, etc will come later. You believe they are happening now in substantive ways, but you are wrong, just like on the BC conspiracy.
The actual fact is there is still a political process going on to take over the country. It is obvious from the fact that Obama is out running a campaign for gun control. IF there was a coup going on he would be at the WH pulling levers. Instead he is trying to convince Americans to get their elected officials to pass laws to disarm their fellow Americans.
Also some people might say it is pointless to tell the Stupid party to do the right thing, or some people might suggest that we pray (as I was told to do during the primaries). Those are good points but do not preclude substantive political action. If someone can't both pray for American and take political action to help save America, then they are simply giving up and rationalizing themselves into political irrelevance much like we see conspiracy theorists doing in this thread.
Do you kiss your dogs with that mouth?
I’m trying to get this straight. According to you, telling fellow freepers to “KMA” is an acceptable insult. It’s only non-A$$ related insults that you object to. Correct?
Read the Federalist papers. "Public ministers and consuls" was 18th Century-speak for foreign diplomats.
When did I ever tell any FReeper to KMA? I have no idea what you are talking about.
When the Texan Freeper was insulted, you went after the person who insulted her. When the Texan instructed a fellow Freeper to Kiss her A$$, you lodged no objection.
Bravo, Butter. You have that rare combination of intelligence AND common sense. God bless you for your efforts.
It’s not too late, by the way. If your genuine concern is with discouraging insults, you can still ask the KMA-poster the question. You know, the one about mouths, kissing and children. Coming from you, such a question might actually discourage future instances of ‘KMA’-style insults toward fellow freepers—and isn’t that what you want?
The granting of a Writ of Quo Warranto by the US District Court for the District of Columbia requires a federal elected official to present evidence that they meet the legal requirements for the post they hold. It does not remove a person from that position. So Judge Carter was correct. He was addressing the process of removing a president from office.
Back in 2010, if John McCain or Sarah Palin had been granted standing to file Quo Warranto and the Writ was granted, the US Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, would have shown a copy of Obama’s short form COLB to Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth and that would have been that.
“Quo Warranto — (Latin for “by what authority”) is ‘an ancient writ used by the King of England to determine if an individual’s claim to an office or franchise is well-founded.’ Theoretically, federal courts can issue writs of quo warranto against corporate officers, but a court must have subject matter jurisdiction to do so. A more likely use of this writ is to challenge the authority of federal public officials to hold office.
‘Quo warranto actions in federal courts are governed by the provisions of [the D.C. Code].’ Additionally, the writ may only be sought by the ‘Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney’ or, ‘by leave of the court,’ an ‘interested person’ acting as a relator on behalf of the United States. Despite the D.C. Code’s relator provision, the D.C. Circuit has held that ‘actions against public officials . . . can only be instituted by the Attorney General.’ Nonetheless, a person having a claim to an office may be able to institute quo warranto proceedings if the Attorney General or U.S. attorney refuses to act. {Only McCain and Palin received electoral votes and had a legitimate claim to the office that Obama was occupying}.
Federal quo warranto has gained attention as a result of the ‘birther’ movement. In Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), the court was confronted with a quo warranto petition challenging President Obama’s right to hold office. The court dismissed the claim: ‘Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.’ As a practical matter, federal quo warranto is probably best viewed as a theoretical matter only — based on a search for ‘quo warranto’ in Westlaw’s CTA11 database, only two cases discuss the writ in passing.”
Yep. That’s all correct. My point was that Judge Carter erred in saying essentially that the courts play no role in removing a usurper. Congress transferred the power to challenge an ineligible executive’s right to hold his office to the D.C. District Court via a writ of quo warranto. With a successful quo warranto, an act of Congress would not be required to remove the ineligible executive.
There’s nothing wrong with using the acronym “KMA.” Sarah Palin uses “WTF.” No difference. An acronym is not the same as actually saying the vulgar words most associate with it.
Either way, I was insulted by the poster to whom I replied, “KMA, bubba.” I didn’t attack him. I was minding my own business.
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.