Posted on 01/26/2009 7:59:40 AM PST by freepersup
08A524
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court is denied.
Phil Berg is going on the Radio to discuss his cases against BO.
Here’s the site:
http://www.bondinfo.org/media/radio/radio_show.php
Calling for A Few Good Men:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/we-are-looking-for-active-members-of.html
A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country
To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.
Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?
“We the people” in this cause assert that anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.
Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.
When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution? “We the People” contend that he is bound immediately, upon the taking of the Oath. In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.
As in the cause of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), “We the People” seek fullfillment of our executory contract, our Constitution, by way of a Writ of Mandamus upon the executor by oath of said contract, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.”
Thus, Barack Hussein Obama, having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law, in this case the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
It is stated in United States v. Butterworth, 18 S. Ct. 441, 169 U.S. 600 at 602 (1898),
The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty resting upon the person to whom the writ is sent. That duty may have originated in one way or in another. It may, as alleged in the present case, have arisen from the acceptance of an office which has imposed the duty upon its incumbent. But no matter out of what fact or relations the duty has grown, what the law requires, and what it seeks to enforce by a writ of mandamus, is the personal obligation of the individual to whom it addresses the writ.”
Following much good faith research regarding the issue of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the United States, “We the People” have found no cases in the history of jurisprudence of the United States of America wherein a Defendant disputed the Constitutional fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” as plainly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2.
That being the case, “We the People” respectfully request that the Barack Hussein Obama stipulate to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; or, in the alternative, that Barack Hussein Obama show good cause why the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over our cause.
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.