Posted on 03/10/2009 10:16:05 AM PDT by Free America52
. . . . t any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
Ah, Calpernia...so much for that...
Thanks much for the ping!!!!
I have long thought that our government has become totalitarian. This proves it. My last hope was that our law enforcement officers (aka the Secret Service) would never go against the American people and in the worst case scenario would turn against an unlawful President. This proves me wrong. Dear God, we are in a pack of trouble.
More:
[snip]
“Right after the presentation there was a book signing. I bought two books-regular and limited edition of his “Making the Case, the Art of Persuading Judges” (the limited edition alone was $150) .
I stood at the end of the line and let everyone else go ahead of me. I figured while he is signing two books, me being the last and he is not rushed, he might have a minute to ask another question.
So, after another hour on my feet (after I stood for a couple of hours at the presentation), I gave him the books to sign and asked “Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”.
He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.
I asked, tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio- he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember. Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court.
I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks, those “mahers”, that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless? I don’t know.
At the end I gave him my 164 page dossier, that I’ve sent to Holder about all the suspected criminal activity, intimidation harrassment, cyber crime surrounding me and officer Easterling. Scalia seemed to be interested and started reading the first page, he put it next to him, but then the secret service agent grabbed it.
What could I do at theis point? Wrestle with the secret service? Clearly that wasn’t the time and the place to show of my black belt Tae kwon Do skills. I just shut up and left. There was nothing else I could do at that meeting.”
More here: http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/10/meeting-with-scalia-and-coordinated-cyber-attack.aspx
You said — About the citizenship issue, Scalia told a close relative of mine that “if the electorate don’t care, why should we (the Court) get involved?”
—
I don’t think the case for getting Obama out of office is going anywhere, either (you’re saying this “statement” exemplifies “why” it’s going nowhere...).
But, I think it’s going nowhere — *not* on the basis of the voting public “not caring” — but rather — because no one was able to present any evidence to the Supreme Court. And besides that, the cases that they had to decide were on other issues (like “standing” for one example...).
The Supreme Court was asked to undo the election or stop the Electoral College votes or to stop the inauguration — but they refused to do any of those, because it was all based on Internet blogs and rumors and speculations and “reasonings” from certain people — but *nothing* in the way of any solid evidence for them to act.
They would act, and do something that was *within their powers* to do — if — someone brought a specific case to them with that issue to be decided and if there was specific and court-verified evidence (from lower courts) that was absolutely documented.
In the absence of all that — the Supreme will be doing *nothing* at all...
—
And by the way, I do not believe that statement as coming from Scalia or any other Supreme Court Justice. I believe they will do the right thing, according to the law of the land that we have, and all applicable statutes and do so regardless of any consequences. However, their power is limited right now, in regards to a sitting President. Only Congress has been delegated the power to remove a sitting President from office.
Could I get added to your ping list?
Obama and his Obots are starting to sweat again. :-)
>What could I do at this point? Wrestle with the secret service?
Yes! As a human being you have the right to seek and petition the Government for redress, this means you have the right to put your case before the relevant person, AND also this is the reason you have, undeniably, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers.
(Of course, the modern methods of “jury selection” are, IMO, utterly unconstitutional and promote injustice. “By your peers” does not mean that your jury is all atheists if you are, or all Islamic if you are, or all hispanic if you are. Etc.)
Bump
But the USSC DOES have the authority to unseal Obama’s birth certificate (and other relevant documents) and ensure that he meets the Constitutional requirements.
ping
The Supreme Court doesn't have to get Obama out of office, if this gets to court and the ruling goes against Obama.
Congress will be compelled to remove him from office. Anything Obama will have done in the past and into the future will be for not. The Military will not have to listen to his orders. Bills signed by Obama will lose to all court challenges. Executive Orders will be null and void. Get the picture.
Obama could refuse to step down and be a figure head of state who would be striped of his powers. Congress could choose to their detriment not to remove Obama, except they would reap the biggest election slaughter of Democrat incumbents in US history. This would become the biggest political PUS that would explode on the next scheduled election day. You Dems go ahead and stick your heads in the sand.
Now that is truly a frightening statement, coming from a Supreme Court Justice.
You said — “Congress will be compelled to remove him from office.”
Now, that is the proper action, for the House to Impeach, and the Senate for Trial. I’m glad to hear that some people do know the process involved... :-)
It is questionable, though, if the House would Impeach, even if presented with something solid. Furthermore, having seen how solid the evidence was with Clinton (absolutely no question about it...), still, he was not convicted. So, it’s not all an “automatic given” — even then...
—
And then you said — “Anything Obama will have done in the past and into the future will be for not. The Military will not have to listen to his orders. Bills signed by Obama will lose to all court challenges. Executive Orders will be null and void. Get the picture.”
The military would not have to listen to his orders — *once* a conviction is obtained from the Senate, in a Trial, which would have been given to them by the House, having Impeached him.
But, prior to a conviction — Obama is not guilty — namely, he has to be *convicted* first, by the Senate, before he is removed from office. It’s just like Clinton — he still remained *President* with no lessening of his powers — even while they were *counting* the votes for conviction (or “failing to convict”).
Clinton never stopped being President — even though, theoretically — he might have been removed from office at a particular time.
The same thing would apply to Obama, too...
You can see it in post #25 ... the repeat of ‘we won, you can’t do anything about it now ... but I’ll pretend to be one of you all so I can keep feeding you this drek.’
thanks for ping LT.
The Plot Thickens...what is going on???
WHAT IS GOING ON???
PS: Secret Service accompanies SC Judges - new one on me but what do I know. Why wouldn’t Scalia just take that packet? Anthrax check even though its passed openly so? He must have taken it back from “Secret Service” agent.
PSS: Scalia doesn’t remember those submissions? Indeed Dr. Taitz has every reason to go completely boffo. Its to her credit she hasn’t.
“Baxter flu vaccines contaminated with H5N1 - otherwise known as the human form of avian flu, one of the most deadly biological weapons on earth with a 60% kill rate - were received by labs in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovenia.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.”
Very interesting stuff??? While the Scalia stuff was interesting and encouraging, the bird flu stuff is TERRIFYING!!
3 month incubation period?? How many people were infected with the live avian flu virus?
Wow.
You said — “But the USSC DOES have the authority to unseal Obama’s birth certificate (and other relevant documents) and ensure that he meets the Constitutional requirements.”
I haven’t seen the Supreme Court doing things in regards to examining evidence, like (let’s say) ordering a “DNA test” of something who was convicted, or “going to the scene of a crime” to examine the surroundings, or taking further testimony on a case, because they found that the testimony was insufficient and they wanted *more testimony* to decide their case.
As far as all the stuff that I’ve seen happen with the Supreme Court is that they rely solely on the evidence brought up from the lower courts and they don’t go out and seek more evidence themselves. They decide cases on the basis of what has been given to them by a lower court.
Perhaps you know of cases where they’ve ordered more evidence to be gathered for their consideration — something that the lower courts have not had. I would be interested in hearing about that... Let me know..
No kidding. Any lawyer who would ask a Justice to comment on a pending case has no business arguing before a small claims court, much less the Supreme Court.
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.