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
Both the defendant in this lawsuit, Washington’s Secretary of State Sam Reed and the defense attorney, the Office of Attorney General Rob Mc Kenna are Republicans.
Another instance of Republicans assisting Obama.
It’s such a shame he is being rewarded with a second term. Maybe God wants to play with him on the public stage.
Where does the Constitution require a birth certificate? Did George Washington have one? Did Abraham Lincoln? Did Teddy Roosevelt?
The Constitution says that the President has to be a natural born citizen, but it doesn't say how he has to prove it or whom he has to prove it to. Obama "qualified" in the way every previous president did-- he said he was a natural born citizen, the voters believed him, the electoral college believed him, the Congress believed him and the Chief Justice believed him. That is-- to quote your phrase-- the "call on the field."
Oh yes, we must stopped this hounding little barry bastard boy Candaian born fraud before we show him up to be a liar of the first order, right?
That is one way for something to be a political question, but not the only way. Read some of the (dozens) of cases holding that federal courts could not adjudicate the constitutionality of the Vietnam War. The default rule in America is that we are ruled by the voters and their elected representatives. Judicial review is the exception, not the rule.
State courts decide federal constitutional issues a thousand times a day, which is why the Constitution specifically provides that state court judges are bound by it (Art. VI, cl. 2).
A "large portion of the American public" believes that the moon landing was faked, the Rothchilds own the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted.
Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo,
Arpaio is a sheriff. Has he filed a sworn criminal complaint with a court? Has he made an official referral to a prosecutor?
Donald Trump,
I don't see where in the Constitution the "Donald Trump veto" clause is. Is that in the emanations and penumbras?
and the HI state registrar who has seen Obama’s HI record and sworn that he cannot verify the birth facts that were submitted to him....
If he has sworn that, no one but you and Larry Klayman seems to have noticed.
LL, you’re a lawyer. You know that the legal presumption of regularity means that it is legally presumed that Onaka obeyed HRS 338-14.3 and there ARE NO LEGALLY-DETERMINED BIRTH FACTS FOR OBAMA. He’s got a record but there are so many holes and problems with it that it’s got less integrity than the morning mist. The burden of proof falls on Obama. Legally. And if he was born at Kapiolani as he claims there would not be these problems with his record. You know that, and the evidentiary rules that have at least attempted to keep this country from being a banana republic know it as well. When we didn’t know any better, sure he could perjure himself and get away with it. But now we know better, and knowledge brings responsibility. Now we KNOW he has no legally-determined birth facts, and without a way of knowing those, he can’t qualify. Qualifying is a positive thing that a person can fail to do. Legally, you know that he has failed to do it, since he legally has no birth facts.
Are you suggesting we just forget about the rule of law? Forget about the legal presumptions and the legal burdens of proof and instead bow and kiss the ring of Congress and all the other lawless jerks who rule the day?
I just got done watching “Braveheart” while I worked. Somehow I just felt in the mood to see the good guys win - even if by their deaths - over the slimy critters who were only interested in padding their own pockets and treating other people like dirt. Where there is no rule of law there is no freedom. Is that what you now say you want?
You sound just like the guy who said we should ditch the Constitution. This is OUR COUNTRY, darn it (he says), and we shouldn’t let the words of some old dead white guys tell us what to do.
IOW, whatever we elect outweighs the Constitution, even though the Constitution itself requires a much more difficult process in order to alter it.
But it was a nice dodge, LL. Where did you see Congress mentioned as those who determine that the President elect (that they just certified as the electoral winner) has “failed to qualify”? Where in there does it say that the Constitution can go straight to Hell as long as the voters have chosen a President elect?
What I see is the exact opposite. I see the 20th Amendment specifically saying that EVEN IF the voters do their bit, and EVEN IF Congress does its bit... the CONSTITUTION STILL STANDS, and the elected winner still cannot act as President if he/she does not meet the qualifications to hold office. It specifically says that the voters do NOT have the last say.
There is no way in heck that a person could read the 20th Amendment and claim that the failure to qualify is a “political issue” - by ANY definition.
So if a CO state court decides something about their state law, it means that NE has to decide the same thing about their state law?
Your arrogant contempt is duly noted.
Pretty sad that even though Bennett twice referenced his actual verification request form in the page that everybody saw, only Larry Klayman and me bothered to find out and process what was on that other page.
That’s the level of competence all these other wonderful people you so adore have shown. Obviously you deserve them.
My children do not, the Founding Fathers do not, and the men who have died to pass on this free country do not.
BTW, Arpaio and Zullo have both filed affidavits that have been submitted in Klayman’s court case in FL. They are too smart to refer any of this to Eric Holder - who is probably the person who ordered the HDOH to create the fabricated birth certificate for Obama, even though it violated the law to do so because Obama is not legally presumed to have been born in Hawaii as the statute requires for that provision to apply. God knows that Holder would be just as unethical as Kagan and Sotomayor, who kept their noses in to decide cases where their own position of power is the issue of the case. Again - these are the people you deserve, since you seem to adore them, but they are not what the brave, honest people of integrity who have fought for this country deserve.
Why can’t the states divorce each other so that you get what you deserve and the people who stand with freedom get what they deserve? Why do we have to be yoked to people who are determined to destroy everything we love?
Seattle Homemaker Fined $13,000 For Doing Background Check On Obama
Ping.
Still catching up.
See Article, then # 33 , # 40 , # 80.
Thanks, Graewoulf. Note a SP found her way to this thread quite early. Funny thing, that...
Since when can the U.S.Constitution be amended by popular vote?
A cat may not look at a king.
Silly cats.
Cajon... a wedding chest
Cajones... Drawers, as in a "chest of drawers."
Your sister's drawers are "ropa interior" underwear.
PS, you are now officially entitled to vote Democrat by absentee ballot under the name Arturo, Arthurus, Art, and Artie. No need to show up at the precinct. Barry and I can handle it, and we appreciate your vote(s)... and your sister's.
Deputy Solicitor General Jefferey Evan wrote a letter to Jordan saying that he would seek sanctions to recover costs if she did not withdraw her appeal.
She didn’t believe him.
There is a city near San Diego called El Cajon. The word “cajon” is supposed to mean “drawer” (as in “chest of drawers”)—El Cajon is a roughly box-shaped valley. The plural of “cajon” would be “cajones.”
Since 2008.
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.