Posted on 03/29/2014 7:51:41 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) March 28, 2014 -- Douglas Vogt has lodged with the United States Supreme Court his compelling forensic evidence that the Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, II is indisputably a forgery.
That forensic evidence is contained in Vogt's 95 page Public and 75 page Sealed Affidavits. Barack Hussein Obama, II - at his White House Press Conference on April 27, 2011 - released his Birth Certificate to prove that he was Constitutionally-eligible to be President. The lodging of the Affidavits accompanied Vogt's filing of a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court which has been assigned Case No: 13-1158. That Petition seeks review of the refusal of the Federal District Court to refer Vogt's Affidavits to a federal Grand Jury as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a).
Rule 6(a) states: "When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned." Vogt's Petition argues that there can be no higher "public interest" than the issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama, II, has foisted a forged Birth Certificate upon the Citizens of the United States. Accordingly, the Petition argues, the lower federal court has breached its Congressionally-imposed duty to "summon" a Grand Jury to hear Vogt's well-founded, forensic proof of the forgery of Obama's Birth Certificate.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Which is that rotten fruit from that rotten tree I mentioned earlier. The legal system doesn't know HOW to make correct rulings because they have a flawed or misled understanding of the principles involved.
Your quoting these decisions as examples impresses me not at all. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is still a fallacy among thinking men. You might as well be pointing out Roe, or Kelo, or Wickard, or Lawrence, or NFIB v Sebilus for all I care. I long ago ceased to have any belief that the courts could get anything right.
I could care less about impressing you or anyone else. I simply post the facts.
Your “a dicto simpliciter” sweeping generalization that because courts have on occasion made bad decisions means that all court decisions are bad and the entire legal system is corrupt is illogical thinking.
I understand that you don’t much care for the decisions that have been rendered on this issue but the fact remains that under our system, court decisions stand until and unless they are overturned.
In my humble opinion, the way to address the Obama eligibility issue constitutionally is through Congress, not through the civil (lawsuit) courts. No lawsuit is going to impact the tenure of the presidency.
I further believe that a criminal (not civil) indictment by a grand jury of average American citizens could force a resignation under the 25th Amendment, as it did with Nixon; but no one has yet filed an official criminal complaint which could trigger a grand jury investigation.
Congress, on the other hand, had the power to refuse to certify Obama’s electors under the 12th Amendment. Congress also has the power to remove Obama from office under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7, and under Article 2, Section 4.
And didn't you just post an entire series of examples of the courts making consistently bad decisions? Not sure how you are asserting a "Sweeping Generalization" when every case you mentioned is another such example.
As for "Illogical thinking", suppose you have a guard that once in awhile, for no rational reason, punches someone trying to walk past him.
Does the fact that he usually gets it right convince you that he should remain on the job? How many such Instances would *YOU* tolerate? The Courts need to get it right, EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I understand that you don’t much care for the decisions that have been rendered on this issue but the fact remains that under our system, court decisions stand until and unless they are overturned.
The "system" which we are supposed to respect is the same "system" which has been undermined by these decisions. If the Judges won't respect the "system", then why should we respect the system for the sake of the Judges?
In my humble opinion, the way to address the Obama eligibility issue constitutionally is through Congress, not through the civil (lawsuit) courts. No lawsuit is going to impact the tenure of the presidency.
If you believe that a ruling that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible to be President, would NOT affect the tenure of the Presidency, then there is no hope of persuading you about anything else. I just don't think you have ever contemplated what a powerful political effect would be the result of such a decision.
The courts might not have force of arms with which to remove this man, but do not think such a decision would not have a massive impact on this man's public office.
At this point, I'm thinking widespread riots would be the more preferable outcome.
Now you’re just babbling incoherently.
If you can’t tell the difference between a statement of fact ( how courts have actually ruled in eligibility cases) and a sweeping generalization ( the courts today ALWAYS rule wrongly) then good day to you, sir.
fact
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Generalization
Taking something specific and applying it more broadly is making a generalization.
Yes, “widespread riots” are often a good solution to problems” [SARCASM]
Now THIS sounds like incoherent babbling.
Yes, “widespread riots” are often a good solution to problems”
Given the Nazi like behavior of this administration, and given the very dangerous precedents which they have set with their behavior, I fully believe widespread riots and destruction may very well be the cheaper price to pay in the long run.
Had there been riots in Germany during the overstepping by Hitler, much future death and misery may very well have been avoided.
If this behavior is allowed to continue I think Americans will very well rue the fact that they didn't riot in opposition to these Neo-Nazis.
You actually think that a dictionary definition of the word “fact” is akin to babbling incoherently.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
You’re a funny guy.
Not at all. I think someone posting a dictionary definition of the word "fact" without any other indication that this is what they are doing, and as if to think it represents some sort of point, is "babbling incoherently." If you aren't communicating any useful information, it is the functional equivalent of babbling.
You’re a funny guy.
I know. It comes from having some wits.
...or some crazed person, who happens to be in the same room with him, when he ”snaps” cos he couldn’t take the lies & abuse anymore.
They won't. As much as I would like to see it happen, it is not going to happen, unfortunately.
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.