Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner

I’m preparing to go to work for the rest of the day so I don’t have time to go into a lot right now, but in a short amount of time found these few articles (which were not the ones I had originally read) and thought I would pass them on to you. I will address your post when I am done with work, which will probably be sometime tomorrow.

Interesting article addressing the specifics of what happened in Sept 2008 and asking whether it could have been economic terrorism: http://www.eidolonspeak.com/?p=121

Another interesting article (opinion) regarding Soros and his ability to impact various countries and regions of the world: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/sab-cn.htm

Article about the conspiracy against Greece and Soros’ involvement in that and other “crises”: http://tarpley.net/2010/03/04/financial-warfare-exposed-soros-goldman-sachs-hedge-funds-attack-greece-to-smash-euro/

El Sordo - Texas goes up to play Nebraska. (College football)

Butterdezillion was “complaining” about Nebraska losing to Texas, in the last second of the game, the last time we went up there.

Me thinks this game isn’t going to be so tight.........

Good luck to them.

Hope you hade a good day. I’m looking forward to your response to my post. As to your last post, there’s not a lot of meat on that bone.

Two of the articles detail issues from Soros’ well know currency speculation, nothing about runs on banks.

The article about whether the events of 2008 were economic terrorism actually sums up like this:

“but unless hard evidence emerges that implicates a particular incidence the calls remain unsubstantiated conjecture.”

Exactly. Unsubstantiated conjecture.

It was actually a rough week; my back and shoulders are really sore.

I tried getting back to those articles so I could C&P some things I thought you overlooked but my computer wants to freeze up when I try. I’ve got my daughter’s homecoming dress to alter and a youth-led Reformation service to write, instrumental music parts to write up, skit to write, banners to make, song to record so the kids can practice it, etc. I don’t have time for the Brennan games right now.

So I’ll just sum up what I had wanted to C&P. The article you claimed to sum up also said that Soros is a good bet for being behind what happened in Sept 2008. He had the motive and he had the opportunity. We don’t have proof that he was the one who did it so it is speculation - as you quoted - but it is not speculation as to whether he could have or wanted to (the answer to both those questions is yes) but whether it can be proven that he did.

I have not said this happened. I have wondered if the behaviors I and others have been puzzled by could be because Soros and the Islamists threatened economic terrorism. I wondered if what happened in Sept 2008 was Soros flexing his muscle so the people he threatened would take him seriously.

You seized on the “run on the bank” aspect of this and said that vulnerability has been fixed.

What I’m seeing is that Soros has shown time and again that he has a motive for engaging in economic terrorism, and has been accused of doing exactly that by many countries. I wasn’t even thinking of Myanmar but there was that opinion article bringing him up in conjunction with that. I was thinking of places like Russia, Britain, China, and France. You can say those cases don’t apply because they were a different form of economic terrorism rather than a run on the bank. What they show me is that he has no moral qualms about doing whatever he darn well pleases regardless of the cost to anybody else. He finds the weak spot and goes for the jugular.

The article you cited says what happened in Sept 2008 could very well have been the work of Soros, though we can’t prove that it was him. That tells me that, contrary to what you’ve claimed, the opportunity was there, and that what we know does not rule out Soros foul play.

It also suggests that there was a combination of foul play on the part of some outside source (Soros being the most probable, according to the article) AND internal sabotage/vulnerability effected by elements within our own Congress, which at the time the endangering measures were taken was run by the democrats. The same democrats who have supported the Cloward-Piven Plan all along, the same democrats that are owned by Soros, and the same democrats that perjured themselves and broke laws in order to make it appear that Obama’s presidency was legal.

I did not start at this issue from the economic perspective. I looked at the bizarre behaviors over a wide range of people and situations surrounding Obama’s eligibility issue - including the very issue in Kerchner’s court case, the failure of Congress to follow the laws regarding certification of the electoral vote. A lot of this stuff has not made sense to any of us.

The strange behavior actually makes sense, though, if the threats that Obama’s lawyers made to the media heads were actually made to the people with LEGAL power as well. The question then became what he could have over them all, that they didn’t all just tell Obama’s people to go screw themselves in jail because that’s where they would be after the threats were reported to law enforcement. That naturally brought up the turning point that led to Obama’s election: the crisis in Sept 2008.

The question I had was whether Soros and the Islamists could have caused that crisis. What I hear various people saying is that they could have. The other question I had was whether the US is still vulnerable to whatever kind of economic terrorism Soros and the Islamists might want to use. And it seems that the answer to that question is also yes.

I don’t claim to prove anything. I’m just trying to find out if there is anything that would rule out this as the possible explanation for the strange behaviors we see. And I’m not seeing anything that rules it out. The article that was particularly about the Sept 2008 crisis seemed supportive of the idea that not only might Soros have brought on the actual crisis, but the democratic Congress may have enacted changes prior to it that helped create the vulnerability. Sort of what we would expect from people who have been working on the Cloward-Piven Plan for a long time and whose political party is owned by George Soros. If this was basketball we might even say that Congress had the assist for Soros’ slam dunk.

Can I prove that? No. I’ve never said that I could. I’m just noticing things that seem a little too convenient to all be coincidence.

Dick Cheney could possibly have “forgotten” to ask the question on that particular day, although with the lead-up and lawsuits it seems unlikely. Him and everybody else continuing to “forget” for the next year and a half, even though there is a lawsuit addressing specifically that, would require them all to be in a persistent vegetative state that whole time. Occam’s Razor would suggest that they chose to skip that part. It’s the law. You don’t just “skip that part”. As Wesley told Buttercup: “If you didn’t say it you didn’t do it.” If they didn’t do the process to certify the electoral vote, they didn’t certify the electoral vote. And that is a Constitutional requirement. Every one of those bastards took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. You don’t “just forget” and you don’t choose to just “skip that part” when you’ve made an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

There is a reason for what happened. It is not that anybody “just forgot”, and it’s not that it’s just too minor to matter.

Regarding Occam, what can be explained away for one person is not so easily explained away for dozens. When you have to explain away a lot of little things the multitude of anomalies itself becomes a phenomenon that requires explanation. One person can “forget”. EVERYBODY forgetting even when there is a lawsuit to remind them is a bit far-fetched.

If Chief Justice Roberts believed that Obama was born in Hawaii, then why did he invite Obama for an ex parte meeting with the entire SCOTUS when court cases were pending? Or why wouldn’t they accept the cases and hear them on the merits just to be done with the whole thing?

I see you keep making this point about "cases were pending," so I thought it might be worth a moment's elucidation.

First off, let's identify what actual cases you're talking about. Obama met with the Justices on January 14, 2009. What Birther cases could arguably be said to be before the Supreme Court at that time?

Donofrio v. Wells (08A407) had its application for an emergency stay denied back on December 8, 2008. So it wasn't an active case.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (08A469) had its application denied on December 15, 2008, so it wasn't active either.

Lightfoot v. Bowen (08A524) had been denied once already on December 17, 2008. But Orly had resubmitted it, and the resubmitted application wasn't denied until January 26, 2009, after the Justice returned from their Christmas break.

Finally, Berg v. Obama initially applied for an injunction (08A391), which was denied November 3, 2008. Then Berg applied for an injunction pending his petition for cert (08A505), which was denied on December 9, 2008. Then resubmitted and denied on December 17, 2008. Then resubmitted *again* and denied on January 21, 2009.

So, at best, you can only argue that the Berg and Lightfoot cases were "pending" on January 14. But even that is disingenuous.

For starters, the cases themselves weren't pending; only their resubmitted applications were. Applications that had *already* been denied, mind you.

Moreover, these were crank cases. As evidenced by the fact that the Justices had already rejected your two "pending" cases a total of four times. And then promptly dismissed them for a fifth and sixth time. There's no ex parte restriction against the President-elect meeting with the Supreme Court because the Court hasn't rejected every last open application in a series of crank cases against him.

So to revisit Occam's Razor again, the Supreme Court rejected these cases over and over and over again because:

A) They are Obama's pawns in a massive conspiracy to cover up his ineligibility and the extensive fraud surrounding it; or

B) They, knowing a little more about the law than you, sincerely believe the cases are meritless and silly.

The invitation was given at the beginning of December, IIRC, and the meeting itself was on Jan 14th. In that month and a half’s time, how many times did SCOTUS have to decide whether they were going to do anything on a case involving Obama? And then, of course, there are the 2 cases that they heard shortly after that meeting with Obama.

I can just hear you saying to the cop, “But officer, I wasn’t driving recklessly. I only ran over 6 people in 6 weeks, and they were nerds anyway so you can hardly count them.”

lol

You still venting bile at anyone who disagrees with you because you are incapable of comprehending anything other than your own misguided opinions?

You still wearing your obama kneepads?

I’ll take that as a big “Yes” to my question.

I know, I know... You can’t really help it.

Insults and derision are pretty much all you bring to the party.

Clearly, you’re still wearing the kneepads for your little fabian marxist. Just thought I check. Confirmation completed.

The invitation was given at the beginning of December, IIRC, and the meeting itself was on Jan 14th. In that month and a half’s time, how many times did SCOTUS have to decide whether they were going to do anything on a case involving Obama?

I already said: five times. All promptly rejected, just like they'd been rejected by the lower courts the plaintiffs were appealing from.

And then, of course, there are the 2 cases that they heard shortly after that meeting with Obama.

Saying they "heard" the case implies that they actually, y'know, heard arguments. They didn't. After Berg's and Orly's cases were rejected and resubmitted, the Justices simply referred them to conference so they could avoid having Berg and Orly resubmit to every single Justice, over and over again. The Court never took these cases any more seriously than the average appeal of a 'sovereign citizen' who claims that the gold fringe on the courtroom flag was illegal.

I can just hear you saying to the cop, “But officer, I wasn’t driving recklessly. I only ran over 6 people in 6 weeks, and they were nerds anyway so you can hardly count them.”

I'm sure comparing crank lawsuits to injured nerds made sense in your head, but I'm pretty sure it didn't make sense to anyone reading it. Especially since, as best I can tell, your analogy seems to equate the Supreme Court with a careless person who doesn't know how to drive.

Are you saying that SCOTUS has no legal obligation to follow the ethics rules on cases that they “don’t take seriously”?

Judging by your attitude I’d almost want to accuse you of being a lawyer.

Are you saying that SCOTUS has no legal obligation to follow the ethics rules on cases that they “don’t take seriously”?

I'm saying the Supreme Court didn't violate any ethics rules.

For one thing, you do know what the ex parte rule is, right? It doesn't prohibit any contact between a party or counsel and a judge; it prohibits communications about the particular case that's before the judge. There's no violation if you don't talk about the case in question.

Here, the Court hadn't accepted any cases against Obama. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe they discussed those cases. You just like to assume they did. There's no more reason to assume improper ex parte communications happened during the meeting than happened during any phone calls Obama could have made to the Justices during the same time period.

You have no idea what they talked about. And part of the rule is that judges are to avoid ANY APPEARANCE of impropriety. Going out and having a beer with somebody you have to make a decision about is probably even WORSE than actually talking shop with them.

It sure sounded like you were arguing that it didn’t matter that they met with Obama because they didn’t take any of the cases seriously anyway. Are you arguing something else now?

Doug Hagmann says he’s got 6 or 7 (can’t remember the exact number) affidavits corroborating the claim that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue - once before the election and once after.

Why did Obama’s lawyers threaten the media heads with annihilation if they reported on Obama’s eligibility issue?

Like 'The Sordo' said, this never happened. Let's recap and summarize:

Way back in August 2009, Doug Hagmann, a regular contributor to the Birther-friendly 'Canada Free Press' website and a recurring guest on the conspiracy-friendly 'Coast to Coast AM' radio show, and Judi McLeod, CFP editor, wrote a piece for the Canada Free Press where they claimed "the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press have documentation of a cover-up relating to the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office."

Here's what they then present as their "evidence":

The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse - should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience.

They also claim to have conducted "multiple interviews" following the receipt of that "admission," but the only fruit of that investigation they describe is:

The account of an administrative assistant employed in New York City by a cable network news station who provided significant, detailed information of a 2008 meeting between the top network executive and four-(4) well-known news anchors. This source confirmed that she drafted the memo to the various hosts to notify them of the date, time and location of this high-level meeting at the request of the network’s top executive.

That article was published 14 months ago. There does not appear to have been any follow-up to it, or any further announcements from Hagmann about discoveries made. It's the last CFP article co-authored by the two. So what can we make of this?

First, your claim that "Doug Hagmann says he’s got 6 or 7 (can’t remember the exact number) affidavits corroborating the claim that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue" appears to be COMPLETELY bogus. On every. Single. Point.

Hagmann doesn't claim to have any affidavits at all; he identifies only two written accounts he claims to have, neither of which he calls affidavits or says are sworn. He doesn't even call the second one a document, or say it's signed. He just calls it a "statement." So no affidavits, like you claimed.

Hagmann vaguely refers to "extremely sensitive investigative documents," but identifies only two. So not "6 or 7" documents, like you claimed.

There's nothing in Hagmann's article about Obama's lawyers threatening anybody. The first anonymous "National Talk Show Host" account doesn't reference Obama's lawyers AT ALL. The second anonymous "administrative assistant" account says only that she scheduled the supposed conference after a meeting between a network exec and an Obama lawyer, but doesn't make any reference to any threats.

And there's absolutely *nothing* about "annihilation by the FCC." Or any mention of the FCC at all. Or that the media heads were threatened with any kind of annihilation. So that part of your claim, well, you just completely made that up.

Seriously, I've seen Birthers misrepresent a lot of evidence in the last two years, but this impresses even me. It's almost like you just wrote a little Birther fanfic, and then attached Hagmann's name to it, it's THAT far removed from the truth.

And Birthers wonder why they're so frequently asked for sources for their claims. This here is a perfect example of why Birthers so often balk at producing those sources.

Now, putting aside everything you got wrong or made up in that particular claim (i.e., pretty much everything except the spelling of Hagmann's name), we're still left with two anonymous and unverifiable accounts with little to no specific detail. That's weak sauce to begin with. Also, there's the fact that Hagmann claims to have come into possession of this 'admission' way back in December 2008. And that he went public with it in August 2009. And here we are, in October 2010, and it's still phantomware. Even if you'd managed to get any of your facts right, you'd still be attempting to rely on super-sekrit evidence that the supposed possessor refuses to release. Even Hagmann himself doesn't seem to want to refer back to this 'investigation' in subsequent Birther articles he's written for CFP.

Over in another thread about the "Birther" documentary, some folks are saying that if somebody really had a Kenyan birth certificate, he wouldn't wait three months to share it with the world. But you're willing to believe that Doug Hagmann has secreted exciting pro-Birther evidence for almost two years?

Then again, you're willing to just make crap up and pretend that Hagmann said it, so who know what you're capable of.

I have listened to interviews by Hagmann since that article was written. Have you?

And just as I said to El Sordo, it seems you are not comprehending what is being said here. If you were told (for instance) that your family would be killed if the story came out, might you be a little hesitant to give the clearance for the story to break?

If you were an investigator and you knew that breaking the story would jeopardize not only the careers but potentially the lives and families of your sources, would you just glibly come out with it before they gave consent?

I can tell you, as one who has worked with others whose identities are to be protected, that the information people give as a sacred trust is not something you just glibly roll off your tongue.

You can say the story is crazy if you like, but if you are even listening at all to what the story is, you will realize that what we’ve seen is entirely consistent with the story. If people were not scared and came out with everything glibly we would know it was fabricated. Like Mel Gibson’s girlfriend claiming she was abused. Abused people don’t come out like that; abused people cower in the corner.

And we have observably seen that none of the media outlets will touch anything. I don’t know yet what I think of Lucas Smith’s claims because quite frankly I haven’t dug deeply into them; I’ve sort of had my plate full as it is. But his claims about why he tried selling it and so on ring true with what I have experienced myself.

I have offered to give my information to anybody in the media who would take it, have offered to put it in the form they want it or to let them take the information and do with it as they please as long as they keep it accurate. Nobody will touch this.

I have been censored from posting anything about this subject matter on just about every media thread you can imagine - and the very worst of all are Fox and Wall Street Journal.

People who have called in to Fox talk shows have been told they can’t bring up that subject. Sean Hannity’s website allowed one “birther” thread so they could quarantine the subject. This is visible stuff that totally fits in with the story - details that made no sense without this story.

I don’t appreciate being called a liar. If I can find the links to Hagmann’s interview that I heard - if I can even remember which radio show it was on, since none of the heavy-hitting “conservative” radio shows had anything about the story - I’ll post them here.

Oh, but wait. That’s right. Google won’t let me look at anything that shows up in their search results. I don’t know if that’s because they think my taking screenshots of the Post & Email cached pages when it looked like the site had been deleted means I’m a robot, or if the virus that somebody put on my computer once I started talking about Soros’ connections was actually making automated communications. I guess it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. Between the virus and Google, looks like somebody’s trying to shut me down.

That gives the paid Obots the chance to say that I’m making stuff up or refusing to validate my claims - yada yada yada, all the stuff that THEY do and want to project onto me.

Hagmann said in the interview I listened to that he has affidavits and they are kept in multiple foreign countries in safe-keeping until he has the go-ahead from the person who originally signed the statement about what had happened. What he said fits what is observable: the media companies have doggedly refused to honestly address this issue.

Why do you think that is? Why won’t they tell the world that the HDOH, for instance, has stated that the certificate numbers were given by the HDOH on the “date filed” - which reveals that either the certificate number, “date filed”, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB? Why won’t Fox, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or NPR report that? It’s not because they don’t know; I have tried to inform them all about it. They refuse. Why?

The virus is redirecting all my clicks on search items to advertisements. Axxholes.

It was in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth.