To: Enterprise
I assume I was pinged to this thread for the question of how to get a court to rule on this issue. I’ve written about that before until I’m blue in the face, so I’ll be very brief, this time.
The real presidential election hasn’t taken place yet. The Electors don’t meet in the state capitals until 5 December. Courts are scared witless over this case, which is why every one to date has found some basis for dismissing the cases filed (usually standing). It doesn’t help that the lawyers bringing these cases have a bone-rattling lack of knowledge about bringing election law cases.
The one plaintiff who could force a court to decide this issue, rather than running screaming into the night to avoid the issue, would be a Presidential Elector pledged to support Obama. State laws require that Electors vote as pledged. However, state courts are required to obey and enforce the US Constitution.
Therefore, if an Obama Elector (probably one with prior ties to the Clintons) brought a declaratory judgment action in STATE court, to resolve the conflict between a law that says vote for Obama, and the Constitution which says Obama is not eligible. The court, even the Supreme Court eventually, would HAVE to decide that case.
There are other reasons, including precedents in state courts, which I have skipped here. Suffice to say, I have tried more cases concerning the right of presidential candidates to appear on the ballot, than all the attorneys who have messed around with these birth certificate cases put together. That includes two wins in the US Supreme Court (for Gene McCarty in 1976, and for John Anderson in 1983).
This can be done, if it is done right. But time is running out for a competent case that the courts would HAVE to decide.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, “The Barack Obama - King George Connection”
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America’s Owner’s Manual, here.
122 posted on Sun Nov 23 18:17:00 2008 by Congressman Billybob (Larest book: www.AmericasOwnersManual.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Nipfan
Notice one of the other Hawaiian COLB posted has an individuals race marked as Japanese.
123 posted on Sun Nov 23 18:18:23 2008 by RatsDawg (Whatever the Government gives us, it must first take away from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Polarik
I just got back from choir practice (we’re getting ready for Christmas Eve at the Old West Church).
Just wanted to say that I have now read almost all of your piece, and it’s really remarkable. You prove your case many, many times, from different angles and different directions. You demonstrate that all those webs sites and groups are clearly complicit in this fraud. And the more they fiddle and “improve” their forgery, the clearer it gets that it IS a forgery.
That business about the paper folds and the seal was entirely new to me, and wouldn’t have been evident if those liars at “FactCheck” hadn’t posted the extra photos. Also the changes from one file format to another.
It’s amazing that they would trust whole teams of people with the secret of this forgery. Amazing that they would venture to do it in the first place. They must be very confident that they can crush anyone who rats, the way clinton crushed Vince Foster.
Well, it’s out there now, so I hope and pray that you will be safe. Too late to keep it out of circulation now.
124 posted on Sun Nov 23 18:21:00 2008 by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Congressman Billybob
It just occurred to me that one thing Polarik deomonstrates in this update of his work is that numerous people are now complicit in this fraud. I’m curious what the legal implications are.
Evidently Obama is not just guilty of running for POTUS when he is not qualified, but is also guilty of complicity in a serious case of forgery.
The same can be said of FactCheck and whoever was involved with posting the COLB pictures on their website. They didn’t just take pictures of a certified document that was given to them. They evidently printed out hard copies of the original forgery, folded it, and then took photos of it from various angles. And lied about the dates while they were at it. Isn’t this complicity in a felony? Or at least, won’t it rise to that if Obama takes his OATH of office?
125 posted on Sun Nov 23 18:30:29 2008 by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
From the polarik final report. Interesting comments. I post them here, because I have trouble loading the post Polarik authored, because of the images.
“There are other reasons, including precedents in state courts, which I have skipped here. Suffice to say, I have tried more cases concerning the right of presidential candidates to appear on the ballot, than all the attorneys who have messed around with these birth certificate cases put together. That includes two wins in the US Supreme Court (for Gene McCarty in 1976, and for John Anderson in 1983).”
“This can be done, if it is done right. But time is running out for a competent case that the courts would HAVE to decide.”
“Congressman Billybob”
quotes from JJ post above
Please file suit, even if the you don’t have the ‘perfect’ planitiff.
3