Check out # 63.
[Thanks, little jeremiah.]
Posted on 11/27/2010 2:40:03 AM PST by rxsid
I would question that there is needed a law to define a ‘natural born citizen’i.e. NBC. NBC is explicit in the Constitution as a requirement. I can realize that depending upon a persons rationale and intent arguments occur as to a definition preceding the application of the word, but to make a law overriding the adopted word in the Constitution would be out of order. Should we need a law to define ‘ Blessings of Liberty’? I grant that it would have been very worthwhile for the Founders to have said something like ‘ natural born citizen as defined in Vatelle’s Law of Nations’. It is my belief that the Founders felt no such need because the meaning of NBC was inherent in the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I Sec. 8.
I would question that there is needed a law to define a ‘natural born citizen’i.e. NBC. NBC is explicit in the Constitution as a requirement. I can realize that depending upon a persons rationale and intent arguments occur as to a definition preceding the application of the word, but to make a law overriding the adopted word in the Constitution would be out of order. Should we need a law to define ‘ Blessings of Liberty’? I grant that it would have been very worthwhile for the Founders to have said something like ‘ natural born citizen as defined in Vatelle’s Law of Nations’. It is my belief that the Founders felt no such need because the meaning of NBC was inherent in the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I Sec. 8.
I’m not a lawyer, but a judge saying he doesn’t have to consider the issue presented before him because it has already been “Twittered” seems like the ultimate ex parte violation. A court cannot consider facts not in evidence. Unless somebody presented “Twitter” as evidence in the case, the judge cannot use it as a basis to decide anything. To do so would be a violation of the federal judicial code of conduct.
IOW, not only is this judge “biased” - he and the appeals judge who let his decision stand are blatantly flipping off the entire judicial code of conduct. Not even biased liberal judges would be that stupid. I think there’s much, much more to the story.
Those 2 lower federal judges are legally bound to the Federal Judicial Code of Conduct, aren’t they? I wonder how a person files ethics charges against them. Maybe with the threat of ethics charges they would come out with the real reason they made those decisions.
Judge Robertson is one of Clinton’s “Magnificent Seven” - whom Clinton appointed to the DC Circuit at the very beginning of his presidency to block any real justice in Washington DC while his “friends” were being charged with crimes. Those judges violated ethics by having monthly meetings just among themselves where they fanangled a way around the normal randomized computer appointment of cases so they would get all the cases for Clinton’s buddies. Their decisions on those cases were always (or almost always; not sure which) overturned on appeal, so the political character of their decisions were evident.
I believe Senator Jeff Sessions was onto them and was going to have an investigation at one point but I don’t know what ever came of that. Maybe the circuit’s head judge (who had been claiming authority to bypass the random assignment) decided to go back to the random assignment of cases once Clinton was out of office?
Since these judges are the stooges of Clinton, maybe Hillary accepting the SOS position was their cue to act as if the Obama presidency was legitimate, to make it appear that Hillary hadn’t knowingly accepted a position in an administration she knew was treasonous.
If they were just stupid enough to be Obama stooges themselves, I doubt they would have based their entire decision on such a blatant ex parte violation.
Blatant ex parte violation is also the way that Chief Justice Roberts chose to taint/flag the cases that SCOTUS conferred over, once SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio v Wells. On the exact same day as SCOTUS decided not to hear Donofrio’s case on the merits, Roberts personally invited Obama to visit the SCOTUS, knowing the Berg case and others were lining up to be considered by SCOTUS. Never before had SCOTUS invited any President elect to visit SCOTUS; such meetings had always been initiated by the President elect, not the court. For a court to do so in this case is not only unprecedented, it is an ex parte violation since Roberts knew there was a long list of court cases that SCOTUS would eventually confer about.
A timeline of related actions/reversals and claimed threats to media makes the Oct 15 through Dec 7th timeframe very, very suspicious. My theory is that Obama threatened the judges within that timeframe, resulting in the sudden reversal in attitude of the judge in Berg’s case - who until that time seemed to be taking the issue seriously.
The first case to actually make it to SCOTUS - after a bunch of interference by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickel - was the Donofrio case. I believe Obama’s thugs told SCOTUS that if they agreed to hear any of the eligibility cases Soros and his communist-Islamist allies would make another run on the bank and collapse the western economy thus bringing the final crisis the commos have been working on for a long, long time. To buy more time SCOTUS agreed not to hear Donofrio’s case but Roberts was determined to keep a foot in the door to revisit the issues when Soros’ threat was mitigated. So he deliberately committed an ex parte offense against all the upcoming cases he knew SCOTUS would have to refuse to hear.
Just like I believe Dick Cheney determined to keep a foot in the door when he refused to ask for objections as required by law during Congress’ electoral vote count.
And as even the liberal Judge Robertson did by his blatant ex parte decision in Hollister.
The threat of penalties for Hemenway and for Taitz for filing “frivolous lawsuits” may have been because the judges hated having to make what they knew were blatantly bad decisions; they knew they would have to violate their oaths every time a case came up so they just wanted to stop any more cases from coming. Threatening penalties was a way to do that, although it didn’t work in Hollister because the plaintiff had already been recognized as having standing.
Since Robertson in Hollister admitted that retired military had standing (as I believe was also affirmed in the Kerchner case, which would seem to make that standing precedent) it blows away the other judges claiming active military doesn’t have standing, which IIRC was the reason the judge denied Barnett and penalized Taitz for pursuing that issue.
The Barnett judge had figured out that if you grant standing you can’t snuff out the lawyer by fines. IIRC, Barnett’s case was the first one where military personnel were denied standing. I should check the timeline there; when was that decision in comparison with Hemenway’s defeat of Robertson’s attempt to fine him? I know Barnett came after Obama evaded the Cook issue by rescinding the orders.
It’s actually bizarre, from a legal standpoint. Early on you have judges admitting that retired military have standing. Then you have active military who volunteered to be deployed seemingly having standing but Obama evades the issue by rescinding orders. Then you have lower-level active duty being denied standing. Then you have an officer with standing basically denied by a judge claiming that Constitutionality is irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders. It’s like the courts are all back-tracking after initially admitting that even retired military have standing. From there the court cases involve people who should have even MORE standing, but the courts keep making standing more and more narrow.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer so I may be overlooking relevant distinctions, in which case I hope somebody will point that out to me.
What is the “federal interpleader act” and how was it used in the Hollister case?
My trouble is that I haven’t followed the cases very well because I’ve been doing my own research, and the legal language drives me nuts. I hate that stuff. I hate the legal motions and don’t understand what any of it means. If I apply myself to it I can generally figure it out but I’d rather swallow a bucket of nails. lol.
The websites which discuss the cases necessarily use so much of the legal language so unless I’m willing to jump all the way in and invest the time it takes to bring myself up to speed on all the terminology and procedures, it may as well be written in ancient Aramaic.
Are you saying that Hollister’s standing is based on the corruption of Robertson in the initial decision rather than on the eligibility issue itself? And if that is the case, then could anybody whose case was compromised by ethics and/or procedural errors would likewise have standing? Would it be standing on the original issue (eligibility), or just on the legitimacy of the decision itself? Would the appeals judge have to decide the case the way that the original judge failed to do?
Did Robertson deny Hollister standing initially? What was the legal point of his claim that the case had already been Twittered?
Just pinging a few names to butterdezillion’s interesting legal-y and judge-y comments.
----
SCOTUS Docket No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
----
SCOTUS Docket No. 10-678
Title: Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
----
...and the 2nd one does not refer to Barry as the POTUS! :-)
I hope the judges are reminded that Barry swore under oath he has never used any other aliases!
In Hollister both Obama and Biden were interpleader defendants and the complaint alleged facts that would indicate that Obama could not lawfully call up the plaintiff from the Individual Ready Reserve so that there could well be a coflict in that case between Obama, should he elect to try and give the order despite not being lawfully eligible to do so and Biden who, under the constitutional line of sucession would be obliged to give the order.
Robertson dismissed the case below on a dismissal motion which Bauer, as counsel for both interpleader defendants filed. There were no hearings and it was the first and only dismissal opinion in which Robertson held that he had jurisdiction of the case because of the statute but then found, under the part of the dismissal rule that applies when a cause of action is held not to have been stated. There was no legal basis for the bias; it was entirely gratuitious.
Check out # 63.
[Thanks, little jeremiah.]
# 66, too.
So Robertson basically said he didn’t have to decide the issue because Hollister hadn’t shown just cause for a judge to take action (such as reason to believe that Obama had “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009? Do I understand that right?
In Hollister the assumption is that both Obama and Biden were lawfully declared to be the electoral winners but Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 so the Constitution requires Biden to “act as President”? So Hollister is asking the court to decide which guy he would be duty-bound to obey? To prevent a situation like Lakin’s?
Would it be helpful in that case for the court to be presented with evidence that Obama does not have a legally valid birth certificate from Hawaii so that he has no birth certificate that would prove both his age and birth place?
The federal government (presumably including the judiciary) is bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and Hawaii statutes allow a late and/or altered BC to have legal probative value only when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Obama has never done that so his BC has zero probative value unless and until he actually presents it as evidence. The HDOH has already made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended/altered.
And because of that admission the COLB Obama presented on his campaign website is known to be a forgery. In addition, the COLB presented on Factcheck is known as a forgery (also because of HDOH statements revealing that the “date filed” and BC# are incompatible) - which the Federal General False Statement Act would require Obama to clarify, or else commit a federal crime similar to perjury. I would think that evidence of somebody committing forgery and perjury would be “just cause” for investigation.
Do you think Hemenway is aware of what the HDOH has admitted regarding Obama’s birth certificate? Can he add factual information to his case at this point?
So Robertson basically said he didn’t have to decide the issue because Hollister hadn’t shown just cause for a judge to take action (such as reason to believe that Obama had “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009? Do I understand that right?
In Hollister the assumption is that both Obama and Biden were lawfully declared to be the electoral winners but Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 so the Constitution requires Biden to “act as President”? So Hollister is asking the court to decide which guy he would be duty-bound to obey? To prevent a situation like Lakin’s?
Would it be helpful in that case for the court to be presented with evidence that Obama does not have a legally valid birth certificate from Hawaii so that he has no birth certificate that would prove both his age and birth place?
The federal government (presumably including the judiciary) is bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and Hawaii statutes allow a late and/or altered BC to have legal probative value only when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Obama has never done that so his BC has zero probative value unless and until he actually presents it as evidence. The HDOH has already made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended/altered.
And because of that admission the COLB Obama presented on his campaign website is known to be a forgery. In addition, the COLB presented on Factcheck is known as a forgery (also because of HDOH statements revealing that the “date filed” and BC# are incompatible) - which the Federal General False Statement Act would require Obama to clarify, or else commit a federal crime similar to perjury. I would think that evidence of somebody committing forgery and perjury would be “just cause” for investigation.
Do you think Hemenway is aware of what the HDOH has admitted regarding Obama’s birth certificate? Can he add factual information to his case at this point?
Butter is a brain and a half.
Hmmm. I’ve got an idea.
Butterdezillion for Attorney General or maybe a Supreme Court Justice when the next R president is elected.
Here’s another case going to the Supremes.
Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t think Robertson’s opinion granted blanket standing to military. From what I am reading here, he acknowledged ‘jurisdiction,’ implicit standing, because of the statute used by Hollister. He then went on to dismiss on other grounds. Maybe a lawyer can clarify that.
I believe only two of the justices are strong "originalists", that is they believe that the Constitution should mostly be interpreted by what the framers meant when they wrote it. At least four are "living breathing" Constitutionalists, who think the Constitution needs to be continually reinterpreted by each generation. Some of the remaining ones fall in between, with one who leans towards "strict constructionist" - ie, the most obvious literal interpretation (which for Natural Born might be "citizen at birth")...
So, unfortunately, I don't think it's at all certain that even if they took the case that the Vattel definition would be the slam-dunk decider that many here on FR make it out to be.
:’) My pleasure.
Quoth the raven: Fight it “twoth and nail”! LOL
READ THE ABOVE - ALL OF IT.
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.