Posted on 05/24/2010 5:30:46 PM PDT by rxsid
Is this case making any progress? I think Mario Apuzzo’s case has an important hearing in early June. He and the fellow who filed it appear to have some real advantages where they filed it before he became president and also sued members of congress and cheney. Past cases tied to say the wrong party was sued.
We can HOPE that it results in his being tossed out on his Dumbo ear, well before 2012.
Constitutionally the elections of the VP and President are separate. Yes, there would have been fraud, but that would need to be separately addressed, and could only be addressed by Congress. So unless we get a heavy majority in both Houses of Congress, it's unlikely that Biden would be out before 2012. Then he'd likely not run.
I just want the Constitution enforced, let the political chips fall where they may.
I can't think of any logical path to this situation that results in Cheney being president.
Unfortunately for our country 0dumbo has all of media and most of the Dems willing to do whateve it takes to prevent the truth about that vile sorry excuse to come out
Butterzillion;s thread above on the difficulty of getting records that should be availalbe show us just what we are up against
For the record this lawsuit, “Hollister v Soetoro” was dismissed by the US District Court for the District of Columbia and the judge imposed a reprimand sanction on the plaintiff’s attorney for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. The dismissal was upheld by the US Court of Appeals.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 09-5080 September Term 2009
08-cv-02254
Filed On: March 22, 2010
Gregory S. Hollister,
Appellant
v.
Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural
person; de facto President in posse; and as de
jure President in posse, also known as Barack
Obama, et al.,
Appellees
J U D G M E N T
These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the
sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint.
Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room
Shhhhhh. You're going to spoil their fun.
All of this takes us back to January 20, 2009 on that podium at the capital. there are five men on that podium, four of whom are not qualified. that leaves Dick Cheney as the only one qualified and Even though not sworn in he is the president.
with obama not qualified he is not the president and legally this nation cannot be with out a president, again this makes Cheney the president.
Shhhhhh. You’re going to spoil their fun.
Well...no. Cheney's term as vice-president ended at noon. At that moment he ceased to be in the line of succession. If Obama is ineligible then Biden is president. If you want to say Biden is complicit in some sort of cover-up then fine. Impeach him, remove him from office, and then file your charges.
with obama not qualified he is not the president and legally this nation cannot be with out a president, again this makes Cheney the president.
This contingency is covered by the Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. And neither one specifies an ex-vice president as being involved.
If obama is found to be ineligible that invalidates the ticket. The president and vice president is one ticket not two thus biden is disqualified. Both pelousie and reed are complicit in the fraud, therefore disqualified.
All of this takes us back to January 20, 2009 on that podium at the capital. there are five men on that podium, four of whom are not qualified. that leaves Dick Cheney as the only one qualified and Even though not sworn in he is the president.
with obama not qualified he is not the president and legally this nation cannot be with out a president, again this makes Cheney the president.
What this means is that nowhere in the Constitution does the judiciary have the power to remove a sitting President. That power is reserved to Congress via impeachment, trial, conviction and removal.
The way to remove Barack Obama from office is for any prosecuting attorney to indict him for a crime and then watch how fast even a Democratically controlled Congress would impeach him to minimize the political fallout just like the Democratically controlled state legislature in Illinois dumped Governor Rob Blagojevich as soon as Patrick Fitzgeald indicted him.
As US District Court Judge David O. Carter said in his opinion in the Obama eligibility lawsuit “Barnett v Obama”:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter
And that includes John McCain!!!
My Fellow Americans,
On Tuesday, 18 May 2010 in The ATLAH Court room under the sanction of the US Constitution “We The People spoke.” Mr. Obama , Michael Sovern, and the Trustees of Columbia University were found guilty on all 17 counts of Sedition, Conspiracy, Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice.
I am assembling a coalition to hand the verdicts to The Judiciary of The US Senate, The US Congress, The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, and The US Attorney General.
Specifically for Michael Sovern and Columbia University, I will be submitting to The New York State Bar, The New York State Attorney General, New York State Regents, and The Mid-Atlantic Schools Accreditation demanding their license to operate an educational institution be revoked.
Perhaps their first response will be to defend and reject. Thereupon, will begin the most exciting part of this guilty victory. Inasmuch, as we will proceed to court testing the constitutionality of the 10th Amendment established by our Founding Fathers.
I expect the courts to be careful in their decision not to injure the rights of “We The People.”
Thank you for your support, I will post and update on You Tube within 24 hours and will take a few weeks rest from the daily Manning Report.
Visit Atlah.org for all daily updates.
In His Royal Service
Rev. James David Manning, PhD
A Natural Born Citizen
Isn't this the same judge who said the plaintiff said "[it has not been proven] that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president?"
Interesting that the judge would twist "Natural Born" citizen (which is what the plaintiff states in the lawsuit) to "Native-born American citizen which is NOT the requirement"
Isn't this the same case that the judge refused to sanction Atny Hemenway under rule 11 which would have given him (Hemenway) the all elusive "standing" in the court of appeals?
Oh yeah, that lower court decision!
About time they used these authorities.
We won't have a country by 2012. Get him out yesterday.
Well, he didn't ask for question on the electoral vote and had a shat eatin' grin...
Not under the Constitution. The states have choosen, as is their power to do, to select electors based on the results of a popular vote for "the ticket". But that doesn't change the Constitution, wherein votes for President and Vice President are counted separately. Biden is eligible. Now he may be guilty of a high crime or misdomeanor, but that is not an eligibility matter. It's an impeachment matter. So under the Constititution, Biden would become President, but Congress could impeach him for being complicit in the Great Fraud of 2008. Meanwhile, he'd appoint a new VP, who'd have to be approved by majority vote in both houses of Congress. Upon impeachment, or resignation, of Biden, she would become President.
Unless... the courts ruled that a President had never qualified, in which case Biden would *act* as President, until a President shall have qualified. (Amendment XX). Then, under amendment XII, since no eligible person would have gotten a majority of the electoral votes, the House would need to select a President from the top 3 eligible electoral vote getters. Which would be McCain, McCain, and McCain.
The catch in that is that Congress would not have picked a President by the time set for the start of the new term (then March 4, now January 20th) and Biden would become, not just act as, President anyway. So that doesn't seem likely to be a court's decision, provided they actually read and follow the Constitution. So we are left with impeaching President Biden.
For the record, isn’t this the case (HOLLISTER v. SOETORO) in which the lower court judge stated this eligibility issue had been “vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency?”
Isn’t this the same judge who said the plaintiff said “[it has not been proven] that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president?”
Interesting that the judge would twist “Natural Born” citizen (which is what the plaintiff states in the lawsuit) to “Native-born American citizen which is NOT the requirement”
Isn’t this the same case that the judge refused to sanction Atny Hemenway under rule 11 which would have given him (Hemenway) the all elusive “standing” in the court of appeals?
Oh yeah, that lower court decision!
And now you know.....................the REST of the story!
Oh, and the terms “Natural Born Citizen,” “Native Born Citizen,” and “Citizen at Birth” have been used interchangeably by the courts including the US Supreme Court going back to the 19th century.
What you call “twisted” the courts call “synonimity.”
For example in “Luria v. United States,” 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
the Supreme Court of the United States implies the equivalence of “native born” with “natural born” when it used the former as the qualification for president:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827
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.