the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable
by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular
periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between
the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying
England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent
of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes
a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." --Thomas
Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
all nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Why? Let me count the ways for you.
only to the greatest heist in American history, the "Federal"
Reserve Banking Act of 1913, is the continuing saga of an individual who
has gone by five different aliases and lied and cheated his way into the
White House. That would be a devout Marxist known as Barry Soetoro aka
Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham aka Barry Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama.
who have followed this incredible scam against we the people are fully
aware of the massive distortion by the subset of the Democratic/Communist
Party USA; that would be the disgraced "mainstream" media as
well as cable networks. Even the so-called 'fair and balanced' FOX News
Network refuses to address the lies and fraud. Instead, the best they
can come up with is Bill O'Reilly slinging labels like tin foil hat folks
or Kool Aid drinkers. Let me give you one example:
Man: Was Barack Obama ever Barry Soetoro?
every reputable source I can find, there is no evidence that the president
ever took the name "Soetoro" -- and he certainly was known as
Barack Obama long before his 21st birthday."
answer man is intellectually lazy. His reputable sources must be the White
House or rags like the Huffington Post. Obama was known by his
classmates at Occidental College as Barry Soetoro, long before he turned
21; when he went to school in Hawaii:
Former Classmate: ‘He Told Us That His Father Was an Indonesian
King,’ That ‘He Was a Prince’ & ‘Would Be
former classmate, who referred to Obama as “Barry” throughout
the interview (the name she claims his classmates called him), said that
she believes Obama was at the prestigious school on scholarship."
phony 'answer' man above must not have seen Soetoro's
school records from Indonesia:
about Obama’s Indonesian schooling first surfaced in January 2007
in a blog called An American Expat in Southeast Asia. The blog documented
Obama was registered Jan. 1, 1968, under the name Barry Soetoro, with
serial number 203, in Class 1B at the Catholic Franciscan Assisi Primary
School in Jakarta.
records listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu,
Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. His religion was listed as Islam. "According
to the blog, school documents recorded Barry's father as L. Soetoro Ma,
a worker in the director general's office in the TNI Topography division
of the Indonesian army. The records indicated Barry attended the Franciscan
school for three years, until Class 3. WND reported Aug. 17, 2008, that
conformation for Obama’s attendance in the Indonesian school came
with the surfacing of a 2007 Associated Press photograph by Tatan Syuflana,
an Indonesian AP reporter and photographer. The photo showed Obama’s
registration card at the Assisi school.
AP spokesman confirmed to WND that the photograph of the registration
card was authentic. The listing of Obama in an official record in a foreign
country as a foreign citizen should have prompted a major media investigation."
issue of Soetoro's dual citizenship making him forever ineligible has
been raging since 2008. Several times the U.S. Supreme Court has set for
private conference to "discuss" the merits of cases; one example
which hasn't changed:
Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case
court without comment declined to hear "Donofrio v. Wells,"
a suit that had attempted to keep Obama off the New Jersey ballot. Leo
Donofrio of East Brunswick had claimed Obama had dual nationality at birth,
because of his Kansas-born mother and his Kenyan-born father, who was
a British subject at the time."
evidence and previous Supreme Court cases, the U.S. Supreme Court
has refused to address one of the most important issues in our life time:
Barry Soetoro's ineligibility to even run for president, never mind anyone
having the "right" to vote for him. As a matter of fact, as
many of us have pointed out, Justice Clarence Thomas seems to think it's
some sort of joke:
Clarence Thomas: We're 'evading' eligibility
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when
it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can
serve as U.S. president, the high court is “evading” the issue.
The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations
panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court's budget earlier this
utterly disgraceful. It
is also a violation of his oath of office.
the second time, due to the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to take on whether
or not an ineligible individual ran for president, allegedly 66 million
imbeciles voted Soetoro back into office. Allegedly because vote fraud
was rampant, again. Instead of stopping this fraud back in 2008, the U.S.
Supreme Court -- ALL nine of them -- deserve to be removed from the court.
The irreparable damage done to this country by someone we have zero documentation
and history on has been covered ad nauseum by so many while the U.S. Supreme
Court "evades" the question of eligibility..
allowed this major issue to fester and another illegal election, the U.S.
Supreme Court has scheduled another conference only three weeks after
the impostor was once again sworn in; committing perjury, again.
February 15, 2013, all nine justices will take up the issue now known
as Forgerygate. Incredible!
believe it will be referred to for oral arguments? Absolutely not. I would
love to be wrong, but let me give you another egregious example of the
U.S. Supreme Court giving we the people "the finger" instead
of taking on the issue of 'natural born' citizen:
and Only Clean Eligibility Supreme Court Petition
year Liberty Legal Foundation became the only organization to present
the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rule on the substantive definition
of “natural born citizen.” Literally hundreds of lawsuits
have been filed by individuals and organizations attempting to challenge
Obama’s qualifications to serve as President. Until LLF got involved,
none of those lawsuits reached the Supreme Court on the substantive question:
What is a “natural born citizen” as that term is defined in
Article II of the Constitution? Prior to our Welden v. Obama
case, every other eligibility lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, and
every one since, presented the Court with procedural questions. Those
procedural questions were fairly routine, and had little or nothing to
do with Obama’s eligibility. LLF’s case was different.
Legal Foundation represented a Georgia resident through every level of
Georgia's state courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court. Then we took
this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. What made this case unique was the
fact that the first court to hear our case, the lowest court in Georgia,
ruled on the substance of the matter. Because of LLF’s briefs, that
Georgia court denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on various procedural
issues. Unfortunately that Georgia court then decided that “natural
born citizen,” under Article II, means any person born on U.S. soil,
regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
the Georgia court's ruling was completely wrong, the fact that it ruled
on the actual issue was a huge victory. Even with a completely incorrect
ruling, the fact that the ruling addressed the definition of “natural
born citizen” meant that LLF could appeal the actual issue that
we wanted resolved. This was the first time this had happened anywhere
in America, despite hundreds of attempts by other organizations.
we sent a petition to review this definition to the US Supreme Court.
Last October the Supreme Court refused to accept our case. They had an
opportunity to definitively answer a question that had spawned hundreds
of cases, and continues to spawn new cases almost every day. Yet they
said that it wasn't worth their attention.
believe that this refusal to accept our case represents an acknowledgment
that the Court didn't want to accept a case when they knew their ruling
would either unseat a President, or remove any remaining belief that the
Court follows its own precedent. You see, the Georgia court's ruling is
a joke. It completely ignored clear Supreme Court precedent. It also relied
completely upon an Indiana state court ruling, instead of following U.S.
Supreme Court precedent. BTW: the Indiana court ruling was so flawed as
to be laughable. Please understand what I am telling you: The U.S. Supreme
Court refused to uphold the Constitution for political reasons. It's that
my free email alerts are aware of Montgomery Blair Sibley (see links
at bottom of this column). He has been fighting this issue for years and
stonewalled by every federal judge along the way. Montgomery just might
have thrown things into high gear with his recent announcement:
Release: Sibley Injects Stuxnet-Like Motion Challenging Obama's Eligibility
Into Federal Criminal Justice Network
D.C. – "A new front on the legal battle to establish that Barack
Hussein Obama, II, is ineligible to be President was opened today by Montgomery
Blair Sibley. To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama's
eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing”
to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like
Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system." Rest
at link...look what Montgomery has done!
Flashback: Dr. Edwin Vieira raised the same legal argument in his Dec.
8, 2008 column: In
the Shadow of Nemesis.
are two other cases the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to even address
that should have been top priority.
first involves a dear friend of mine, Tom Selgas; the case was
Selgas v. HCAD. Docket
12 -39 was scheduled for September 24, 2012. Act surprised,
Petition for Rehearing was filed. Act surprised, denied, no
comment. A new Writ of Certiorari was filed, February 8, 2013,
using a different Petitioner, MyMail, Ltd and different Respondent,
Internal Revenue Service. The attorney of record is Larry Becraft.
Once it's posted, I'll send it as a link in my free email alerts.
Again, it deals with the value in "dollars" regarding gold clauses.
is so important about Tom's case? I urge you to read the Writ
of Certiorari filed with the the United States Supreme Court.
If not today, book mark and read over lunch or on a weekend until
you get through it because it is very important. Tom and his wife
paid for their beautiful homestead and acres with gold. The dispute
is with appraisal of the property; gold vs worthless "Federal"
Reserve Notes (the "money" in your wallet):
Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals held that the monetary value of
a private “gold-clause contract,” which required payment
solely in currently minted United States legal-tender American
Eagle gold coins, is not the aggregate face value in “dollars”
of the coins actually tendered; but rather is measured by those
coins aggregate value in Federal Reserve notes, which is many
times the value assigned by Congress.
this decision is allowed to stand, State courts can randomly set
the value assigned to such U.S. legal tender based on the perceived
“market value” of gold on any given day. This would
result in widely fluctuating valuations of U.S. legal tender in
different jurisdictions throughout the United states, nullifying
the protections authorized by the use of “gold-clause contracts”
and triggering profoundly negative effects throughout the United
critically important issue the U.S. Supreme Court simply ignored.
case was also brought by a wonderful individual I call friend
who allegedly lost his reelection primary in the Idaho State Legislature
last year, Phil Hart. Phil is the author of: Constitutional
Income, Do You Have Any? I read Phil's cert dealing with the
the 16th Amendment provide Congress with an exception to the Constitution's
apportionment clause regarding its authority to levy a direct
tax? Act surprised. Denied.
critically important issues. Denied three times. Don't tell me
those justices can't appreciate the seriousness of all three cases.
And, don't be naive enough to actually believe the U.S. Supreme
Court is not just as much an activist court as federal courts
throughout the country because they are. Case one deals with an
ineligible candidate, a bi-racial candidate, who has twice usurped
the office of President of these united States of America. Case
two deals with the value of real money affecting the entire population.
Case three dealt with another monstrous lie: misapplication
of the federal income tax.
Kagan sits on the court unlawfully because she was nominated by
a putative president. She's also a hard core socialist. Solicitor
General Elena Kagan has called for Socialists to unite in order
to defeat the "entrenched foe."
Sotomayer sits on the court unlawfully because she was nominated
by a private citizen. Since Soetoro is forever ineligible to run
for president, he is still a private citizen. Sotomayer should
have been indicted and convicted for her participation in a bankruptcy
fraud scheme while sitting on the federal bench:
Senators Ignore Sotomayor's Criminal Activities (July 20, 2009)
Confirmation Vote Rescheduled - Here's Why (July 22, 2009)
Sotomayor: Tax Evasion, Perjury - What Did Obama Know & When?
(April 23, 2012)
shameful court receives about 10,000 writs per year; roughly 75-100
cases ever make it to oral arguments. Why? Because circuit courts
across this country can't even come to the same decision when
it comes to the U.S. Constitution. A four page document and law
libraries filled with thousands and thousands of differeing opinions.
can also tell you the grotesque shennanigans by the individuals
who clerk for the nine justices should also be the subject of
a federal grand jury. What they pulled in Leo Donofrio's case
as well as Orly Taitz', I believe borders on criminal. Let me
tell you another dirty little secret. Individuals pay attorneys
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees
to get their case to the U.S. Supreme Court after years of waiting
for the "wheels of justice" to turn. For too long, clerks are
the ones choosing which cases will be heard.
are two columns everyone should read. The first by yours truly;
the second by an attorney named Craig Tweedy.
Attorney Wants Scandal Inside Courts Exposed
petition's Issue 1 predicted law clerk fraud on the Supreme Court.
Issue 3 stated, "If a state bar and supreme court subverted truth,
due process and the law of the land to suspend an attorney for
having challenged circuit law clerk protection for judicial fiats
imposing different claims than filed, does this warn that the
So Help Me GOD Duty to defend the Constitution violates protocol?
If so, does this signal and also confess the inside means, in
practical effect, to retire the Constitution, rule of law, due
process and function of this [Supreme] Court, as well?....
Means of Tyranny - Scandal in the Courts
Outlaw Congress has turned a blind eye to crushing decisions by
the U.S. Supreme Court for years, think Kelo
vs City of New London back in 2005 and the most recent,
thanks to John Roberts, deciding the unconstitutional Obamacare
is a tax. That is being challenged by Pacific Legal Foundation
solid legal ground:
its ruling on Obamacare this past June, the U.S. Supreme Court
characterized the ACA’s charge for people who don’t
buy health insurance as an exercise of the federal taxing authority.
That holding opened the way for PLF’s legal assault: PLF’s
lawsuit argues the ACA was introduced in the wrong house of Congress.
It started in the Senate even though the Constitution’s
“Origination Clause” (Article I, Section 7) requires
that taxes start in the House. PLF’s case is before Judge
Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Howell recently ruled that PLF’s Origination Clause
argument may go forward.
Obamacare, the legislative process was backwards — and that
makes it unconstitutional,” said Beard. “If it’s
a tax, as the Supreme Court called it, then it started in the
wrong house.” The Origination Clause says that “all
bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other
became the ACA, however, was unveiled by Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid. In a so-called “shelf bill” ploy, Reid
took a totally unrelated House measure on veterans’ issues,
struck out all its text, and substituted the voluminous language
creating the ACA, with its heavy taxes, including the charge for
people who don’t buy insurance.
Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such a gut and switch
ploy is constitutional. Georgetown University Law School Professor
Randy Barnett, a leading constitutional critic of Obamacare, sees
the importance of getting an answer from the Judiciary. “If
any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the
Affordable Care Act,” he wrote recently, in an article on
we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about
dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,”
said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax,
if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John
Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause
as a safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate
new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly
accountable to voters — members of the House, who are elected
every two years by local districts.”
the three cases above, the U.S. Supreme Court - all of them -
should be impeached and thrown off the bench for cowardice and/or
political agendas. What good is the Supreme Court if they refuse
to hear cases that affect all of us - not to mention eligibility
for president of these united States of America? Some joke Justice
Clarence Thomas. Funny thing, though. I'm not laughing. Since
the toxic hearings excoriating a fine, decent human being, the
late Robert Bork, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a political
of activist federal judges across this country should have been
impeached years ago. Of course, it won't happen because
the American people just reelected 90% of the same liars, thieves
and cowards who have allowed judicial tyranny to flourish in this
country for decades. The U.S. Congress is a body of gutless
cowards who pay more attention to making political speeches during
hearings (Benghazi-gate) than paying attention to the rotten federal
courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
judiciary is one of the most important branches of government
the Outlaw Congress continues to ignore for politics. The American
people have already lost faith in the Outlaw Congress (except
those with their hand out). When they lose all confidence in our
court system, lawlessness will spread across this country like
Americans pay no attention to what's going on in Washington, DC
and the thousands of new laws, treaties and regulations - until
the system bites them. Judicial tyranny has ruled this nation
for too many decades, but whose fault is tyranny in the courts?
Look in the mirror. Our freedoms and liberties are being crushed
because Americans go to the ballot box every two years and vote
back the same incumbents who have destroyed this once free nation.
Now, we're all paying for it.
to DeThrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira
College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’
Warranto Filed by Presidential Candidate
Injunction Hearing In Sibley's Electoral College Lawsuit Challenging
Obama's "Natural Born Citizen" Status -Subpoena Issued for
Obama's Original Birth Certificates
2013 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
This Site Served