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 ...
ping
To which Scalia replied what?
Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4 people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these 4 that call themselves Constitutionalists, went to the other side. He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that quo warranto is antiquated or not appropriate, no, just get 4. Right after that he went into the issue of the 17th amendment. He stated that today the Congress and the Senate are not accountable to the states and can do whatever they please. He stated, that when the rules of the game were changed in 1913, when the senators were no longer chosen by the state legislature, but rather elected, therefor they are not accountable to the states, cannot be recalled by the state and that is why there is such an overreaching power by the federal government. The way I understood it, is that maybe the 17th amendment needs to be repealed or maybe we should check our voting machines, since the Sequoia software in our voting machines is owned by the communist Hugo Chavez. of Venezuela.
To which Scalia should reply (beyond stating that 4 justices need to vote in favor of granting certiorari for the case to be heard- which is a fact widely known in the public domain) that it is something he cannot discuss. I’m surprised that a lawyer would ask him such a question in such a setting.
Of interest?
Scallia : go p1ss up a rope...
From: http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/10/meeting-with-scalia-and-coordinated-cyber-attack.aspx
Meeting Justice Scalia
I was supposed to do Betty Jean show, as I was driving to LA to the reception with Justice Scalia, but the show had to be postponed due to the disturbances. I hope you, the readers, can find some decent people in law enforcement that do not belong to Obama mob and didn’t buy into this garbage idea of North American Union, New World Oder and World Government. You need to find decent law enforcement from mid level down, that will investigate and prosecute all of these cyber attacks. This has to be a country of law and order, not Chicago mafia.
At 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.
I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks, I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.
Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4 people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these 4 that call themselves Constitutionalists, went to the other side. He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that quo warranto is antiquated or not appropriate, no, just get 4. Right after that he went into the issue of the 17th amendment. He stated that today the Congress and the Senate are not accountable to the states and can do whatever they please. He stated, that when the rules of the game were changed in 1913, when the senators were no longer chosen by the state legislature, but rather elected, therefor they are not accountable to the states, cannot be recalled by the state and that is why there is such an overreaching power by the federal government. The way I understood it, is that maybe the 17th amendment needs to be repealed or maybe we should check our voting machines, since the Sequoia software in our voting machines is owned by the communist Hugo Chavez. of Venezuela.
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.
No. He didn’t.
Almost more frightening than fascinating. I don’t fancy myself a conspiracy theorist by nature, but this whole eligibility question is getting to be just plain weird, IMO.
Keep the heat on it, though. It’s a critical Constitutional question that deserves fair and thorough hearing and resolution. If we turn our backs on this issue, then we deserve whatever comes our way...
It’s time to take back the country.
1913—a disastrous year, when the Progressives took the White House, and got the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve.
Scalia tells an attorney that he'll hear an NBC case. That's big news.
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?”
For the electorate to care, wouldn’t they first have to know about it?
NO, noticed the bold words:
"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4 people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument."
Well it appears enough of the electorate is starting to care for Scalia.
BTTT
Good!
Ummmm..., isn’t there a bit of a problem discussing a “case” you have before the very judge who is going to hear it? LOL...
This seems quite odd. It seems less like a *lawyer* and more like a “public relations stunt”... :-)
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.