Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
Notice of Commission of (i) a Felony Cognizable by a Court of the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of Felony and (ii) Treason against the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of Treason and Motion to Seal Document
COMES NOW Douglas Vogt: (i) pursuant to the obligations placed upon him by 18 U.S.C. 4 and 2382, upon both his Public and Sealed Affidavits attached hereto, and gives the requisite notice of the commission of felonies and/or treason by the following described persons cognizable by a Court of the United States and (ii) pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), moves the Court for an order sealing his attached envelope containing his Sealed Affidavit marked with the case caption and the phrase "FILED UNDER SEAL", and states as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Zero the usurping fraud who’s past/background have been scrubbed and his blatantly forged “birth certificate” and lack of providing a birth document will be investigated for years to come, however the scumbag and his handlers have already committed treason and proven themselves domestic enemies of the Constitution by violating it’s charter and cavorting with terrorist Muzzie Brotherhood in the White Hut, arming them abroad, the various scandals of domestic spying, IRS, etc. And it’s only going to keep getting worse. The traitorous ruling class in both parties is also guilty. So finding truth, accountability and justice for a simple birth document, Fast and Furious scandal , Justice Dept going after reporters, etc etc etc all amounts to same dead end when corruption and lawlessness abound. Stock up on lead and prayers for the coming hellstorm and hopefully we can restore the Republic.
Obama has provided aid and comfort to AQ and the muslim brotherhood....
groups that have sworn to destroy us....groups we are at war with...our
enemies in a war. His conduct meets the black letter legal definition of
high treason....a hanging offense. And THAT level of criminality has
gone unchallenged......comparatively speaking his putative citizenship
is chump change.
The link you gave had no definition of instantiation so I looked it up through Google:
Definition of INSTANTIATE
: to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance “heroes instantiate ideals — W. J. Bennett”
— in·stan·ti·a·tion noun
Examples of INSTANTIATE
“his imposing mansion is intended to instantiate for visitors his staggering success as an entrepreneur”
First Known Use of INSTANTIATE
1949
Related to INSTANTIATE
Synonyms
body, epitomize, express, externalize, incarnate, incorporate, embody, manifest, materialize, personalize, personify, substantiate
Antonyms
disembody
Related Words
actualize, concretize, realize; exemplify, illustrate, image, objectify, symbolize, typify
So I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. You specifically claimed that the Constitution authorizes Congress to determine Presidential eligibility through the electoral vote-counting process. I showed you exact language, from the law which codifies the Constitution’s requirement and has been in effect for some time without having been declared unconstitutional, that said Congress MUST accept any electoral votes that are certified by the State. I then asked you to show where the law or Constitution contradicts that and says that Congress can refuse to accept electoral votes because the recipient of the votes is ineligible. And you come up with “instantiation”?
Please explain to me why “instantiation” nullifies what is in 3USC Section 15.
And please tell me why “instantiation” is required, in order for the judicial Power to “extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”. Seems to me that pretty clearly says that the job of the judiciary is to settle disputes over how the law should be applied in specific cases.
Regarding whether you are a “liberal shill”, I doubt that you were zotted because you were such a persuasive conservative. Every one of Obama’s paid agitators takes on the cover of being “conservative”. They’re known as “concern trolls”. It’s called trying to blend in wherever you are so that people will trust you. Van Jones has a doctrine about that.
What led me to call you a troll was your refusal to engage with the information and questions presented. Someone else mentioned your repetitive answers, as if just saying something over and over makes it true. I am more than happy to reason with anybody who will, but you have given no substantial answer to where Congress is ever authorized to reject electoral votes because they are for somebody ineligible. I have shown statutory language saying they have no choice in the matter of which votes to accept, as long as the votes are properly certified by each State. That’s pretty clear language, and the ball is in your court, to show why that law isn’t the real law of this land.
I’ll just add one thing to this. It could be said that Congress could object to electoral votes by saying that they are not properly certified if a State has a requirement that candidates be eligible and yet they certify electoral votes for an ineligible candidate. But lower courts have said that unless the state law requiring eligible candidates actually REQUIRES the SOS to get proof of eligibility, the States CAN’T do anything but accept the candidates’ (or candidates’ parties) claims of eligibility. If the States said that anybody and their dog can be on the ballot, then Congress HAS to accept electoral votes for anybody and their dog, if the State certifies that anybody and their dog won those electoral votes.
In Nebraska, the counsel for SOS John Gale told me that they could KNOW somebody was ineligible and both the candidate and the DNC people who certified his eligibility could be sitting in jail for committing perjury and election fraud for submitting that certification.... and the name would still have to go on the ballot. And 3USC Section 15 means that as long as that jailed person got enough votes in Nebraska, Congress would HAVE to accept those electoral votes. Where, in any of that, is the opportunity for anybody but the courts to ever disqualify an ineligible candidate?
Unfortunately, I think what you said pretty much sums up where we’re at. This government seems to be beyond salvaging.
It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg thing though. He got into the Spite House by literally taking the entire system hostage. I say literally because the media was threatened if they reported on Obama’s eligibility or his Muslim leanings, and that kidnapping of the free press through life-and-death threats infected the entire system. Once he was in the Spite House he was able to commit further treason because the threats were still in effect. The guy has always been an agent of this nation’s enemies, and taking the oath of office was the ultimate act of high treason. Everything else just naturally flowed from that.
Those who see him for the enemy he is should be angry that he took the system hostage as well as being angry that he followed through on his masters’ plan once he got into office.
But most people won’t see any of it because the media is either threatened into silence on the truth of Obama’s high treason, or else gladly commits treason with him. Obama is a snake, doing what snakes do. The ones I blame more than anybody are the Supreme Court and the media. I think both entities have been threatened with something that can’t be neutralized by law enforcement: the communist-Islamist alliance’s threat of another run on the bank to collapse the US and/or world economy. If so, then the biggest blame probably goes to the Congress-critters all along who watched the corruption and Cloward-Piven plan to destroy America from within, and did nothing about it.
As it is, Obama is going to collapse the US economy just through Obamacare, so the threatened people should soon learn they’ve got nothing to lose, and the only way out of this mess is to excise the cancer that is consuming us.
Example of instantiated powers of the President as a result of an enumerated power.
The pocket Veto. To neither approve nor disapprove of a bill while Congress is adjourned effectively kills the bill and removes the veto override ability of Congress.
Recess appointment. The Constitution say's the President can make appointments while Congress is in recess. Common reasoning tells us its so that the President always has the ability to appoint and is not impeded by Congress being in recess. Yet Presidents use this as a tool to make appointments without advice and consent (for at least a year) and it's perfectly Constitutional because it is an instantiated power.
AMENDMENT XX Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Section 3
and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Hmmm, no.
As Commander and Chief of the U.S military and therefor chief strategist for conflict (though smart ones would delegate), the President is entitled to negotiate and reciprocate with the Enemy, and if need be — surrender.
IF he gave AQ stingers because they promised to bring down Syrian Jets, and be nice guys to us, then they turn around and use them on U.S jets instead .... That’s not treason. That’s perfidy on the part of AQ, and foolish on the part of the President.
Charging and finding the President guilty of Treason would be a very difficult task.
Except, I’ve never been Zotted. I once swore in a post and for one day all my posts went to a moderator for approval, but even that post wasn’t Zotted. I also received a personal note from Jim R. regarding my moderate stance on abortion. He informed me FR is an absolute anti-abortion forum and my view on that issue wasn’t welcome. Still, those posts weren’t Zotted either.
Those things are expressly stated in the Constitution.
Pocket veto: Article I, Section 7: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unltess the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Recess appointments: Article II, Sec 2: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
In those instances the President is operating within express parameters given by the Constitution. To be comparable to the idea of Congress being able to reject electoral votes even though the Constitution merely gives authority to COUNT them, and statute expressly says they may NOT reject any electoral votes that are certified by their State, you’d have to have the President say that because the Constitution says he can make recess appointments, he decides instead to use the recess to CREATE a whole ‘nother Cabinet post, even though there is a statute saying that when the President makes recess appointments he may never create a new Cabinet post.
If Mom gives you permission to eat one cookie that can NOT be construed to mean she gives you permission to eat the whole cookie jar. Especially if she puts Dad in charge of overseeing the process and he says, “No cookie other than the one you had permission to eat may be eaten.”
Also, Congress DID provide BY LAW for the instance in which neither the President nor Vice President qualifies. That is 3USC Section 19, which Greg talked about because it uses the word “qualifies” repeatedly. That’s not saying that Congress has the right to say which person will be President every time it comes up. It is saying that Congress decides in advance the protocol for Presidential succession, and then it happens automatically.
If the right of duty devolved to somebody in the line of succession who was Constitutionally disabled from acting as President and that person still tried to act as President, the courts would have to determine that the person was not able to act as President, because it is a case or controversy arising out of the Constitution and laws. Who would have standing to bring that suit? Whose business it it, if the Constitution and a US law are broken and as a result we end up with an ineligible Commander-in-Chief and chief executive in charge of all appointments to agencies that regulate every facet of our individual lives? Whose business is it? Who suffers a grievance that deserves redress according to the First Amendment?
so what do you think guys, what is this?
I can’t figure out all this legal speak.
This is the explanation Usagi yo gives regarding the fluctuation in his posting privileges. FYI. I hope this makes sense out of what you observed.
The Constitutional definition of treason: Art III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person whall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Adhering to the United States’ enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Bashar Assad is not our enemy. He has done nothing to us. If we arm Al Qaeda who has openly said that they seek to destroy us, supposedly for the purpose of taking out Bashar Assad who is basically an innocent bystander as regards US.... how is that not giving aid and comfort to our sworn enemies? First off it is basically declaring illegal war on an innocent bystander and then fraternizing with our enemy to serve HIS purposes in getting rid of that innocent bystander. That is TOTALLY, TOTALLY different than gathering together a “coalition of the willing” to oust somebody who has sworn to export terrorism to our various countries (as was indicated in the records that were found in Saddam’s palace. Saddam’s son sent out a recruitment letter for jihadists willing to do attacks on American and British interests all over the world, and there was a message from the Al Qaeda people saying that the US knew it was a joint effort between AQ and Iraq so they should expect the US to retaliate against Iraq. Saddam was also on tape saying that the new method of warfare would be terrorists, so that a given country couldn’t be blamed.)
And I really, really doubt that when Ghadaffi’s 20,000+ Manpads went “missing” (cough), somebody in the US who oversaw the unlawful ousting of Ghadaffi to continue the “Arab Spring” in which extremist Islamists ousted and took over from our ALLIES in the “War on Terror” (at the time that we took him out, Ghadaffi was cooperating with us more than any other country by reporting suspected terrorists to us)... was there making the recipients of those weapons sign promises that they would only bring down 747’s that had no Americans on board.
Then there’s the tax exemptions to Obama’s family that is fund-raising for the Muslim Brotherhood. There is also Obama’s signed membership in The New Party, whose goal was to overthrow the US Constitution through covert means. Morsi’s #2 says that Obama is a signed member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the US military identifies as an extremist organization, and I believe they probably have a plank supporting worldwide sharia, which is a direct enemy of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I could go on all day, unfortunately. Every enemy this nation has ever had is on Obama’s list of quick-dial friends and always has been. Always welcome to visit the White House. When Bin Laden’s son Hamza was caught at the finish line of the Boston marathon bombing, Obama met with the Saudi ambassador and had the “known terrorist” classification removed from him, had his wife literally “comfort” that sworn enemy who had just blown up little American kids by visiting him in the hospital for the whole terrorist world to see and laugh at, and then exported him on a supposed student visa “overstay” (even though we can’t deport anybody, ever) so that he would evade an angry CIA and Boston Police Department who knew who the guy was and wasn’t about to let him get away.
And then.... Hamza also showed up 3 months later AT THE WHITE HOUSE, at a party for US military, ON JULY 4TH.
Is that “comfort and aid” to a known enemy?
Like I said, I could go on all day. The guy is a foreign enemy combatant. If we can’t get this guy for treason, then nobody will EVER be convicted of treason, even if they nuked the whole country. And there are questions of whether Obama might do that too. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anybody informed, such as we Freepers, who doubts that he is capable of doing it.
I should have said there was a message from AQ to Saddam saying the US knew that 9-11 was a joint effort between AQ and Iraq. This was within a 24-hour time window after Mohammad Atta’s photo had been published and someone had identified him as the person who had been casing the Air Free America in Prague, Czechoslovakia after meeting with one of Saddam’s head guys. The Czechs were livid with America’s CIA for leaking a bunch of info to the press before they could get all their i’s dotted and t’s crossed. The particular timing of that message from AQ to Saddam made it very credible, because it was right after Atta was identified as having been with the Iraqi guy in Prague but before the CIA claimed there was no connection - royally ticking off the Czechs, who basically threw up their hands in disgust at us and figured we need to fight our own battles since we mess up anything that requires tight lips.
So, why on God's green Earth, would you even mention your stance on that, on this forum, again??
There should be, but said transcripts would never see the light of day in our lifetimes.
There are many, many on both sides of the political isle that are chin deep in the continuing cover-up. Could you image if it was revealed that yes, in fact, eligibility was discussed in particular presidential cases (aside from John Bingham's 3x in the House of Rep's), and every Congress since the 111th has been ignoring/quite on the issue? Talk about cover-ups!
Because I know longer advocate on that issue on this forum. As per requested.
No, you’re wrong. While the method are enumerated, the actual practice is an instantiated power.
In both instances, the President seeks to game the Constitution through administrative trickery to cut out the legislative advice and consent and ability to over ride vetos <— that’s not enumerated in the Constitution, it is however instantiated as a consequence of it’s enumeration. So it’s perfectly Constitutional for the President to exploit this.
But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let the SCOTUS address it as they did in:
Pocket Veto Case - 279 U.S. 655 (1929)
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.