Barack Obama, alleged President, was A.W.O.L. and his atty. too, decided to snub the Judical ORDER and the Judical branch of Government, since they did not get it dismissed as hoped. Now EVIDENCE that Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen is ON the Court Record.
By Sean O’Neill Bear Essentials contributor. Americans For Prosperity hosted a panel discussion on School Choice last night at Loyola Academy, a private Jesuit school for inner city young men. School Choice is blitzing the nation with the message "shining a spotlight on effective education options for every child." The St. Louis panel touched on those options.
The panel consisted of Dick Morris (political strategist and commentator), Dana Loesch (Radio host and CNN commentator), Mike Podgursky (Professor of Economics University of Missouri) and Robbyn Wahby (Executive Assistant to STL Mayor Francis Slay). The panel discussed educational topics such as:
- charter schools
- vouchers to private/parochial schools
- the effect of teacher unions on public education
- the rising cost of funding to schools with negligible rise in test scores
- the reasons schools are failing
- data to determine failing schools
- the falling population in the city residential areas and how it affects the STL city public schools
Podursky nailed it when he gave some of the reasons public schools are failing:
- there is a lot of regulatory crust
- no innovations and no free market
- different kids have different needs and one specific school cannot meet all the needs of all the kids
- schools are tied too heavily to standardized testing
"How is sending students to charter schools (schools supported by taxpayers dollars and under the same government mandates) freeing them from the regulations, lack of innovation, teaching to a student's need vs the system, and reducing the testing?"
THAT question was NEVER answered. This is the problem with the School Choice movement in general and in Missouri with the funding of charter schools. It never addresses the underlying fact that the government is still providing the blueprint and the rules and regulations for what the children are learning. The money is being transferred to "free markets" (which conservatives love) but the system is still controlled by the government. That's not really free market, is it? That's not really an authentic choice for parents, is it?
Dick Morris stated, "Choice is where you send your child to school and the money follows the child." He outlined why this is a revolution in education and gave his reasons why this choice movement is needed:
- In the 1960's and 70's the "Rankings of the States" was released by the NEA. The states began to fund education more heavily: test scores did not change
- In the 1980's, states were pushed to upgrade the curriculum and standards and demand better testing: results did not change
- In the 1990's, NCLB was instituted focusing on which schools were failing and concentrating efforts to increase testing scores: no uptake occurred
Based on this dismal track record, Morris believes we need to be creative and provide options for education: school choice.
Morris stated, and apparently believes, education needs to be creative and innovative and released from NCLB type mandates. Amazingly, the subject of Race to the Top mandates (and those "mandates formerly known as RTTT" implemented in states which didn't receive RTTT money) and Common Core standards was never mentioned by Morris. What the school choice advocates are advocating just doesn't make sense. State educational providers are operating under NCLB on steroids and Morris is stating that you can choose your publicly funded school and it's a true choice in education? How are more federal governmental mandates allowing more local control? Is it that these folks just don't get it, or is it they just don't care? Is the idea of "we have to do SOMETHING overrides a thoughtful approach to educational problems?"
Morris additionally stated. "We will never have the political will to close the failing schools. We're just going to close the empty ones". There it is. Through choice, most parents will take their kids out of traditional public schools. The remaining public schools are going to be populated with the kids who aren't motivated or who have undiagnosed disabilities, whose parents are disengaged from the education process and for whom an alternative school has not yet been opened. Morris believes, in a free market, some group will step forward and bring those kids into their alternative school, and the now empty public school will be closed.
Morris may be correct, that we are seeing an education revolution, but it is on the delivery of education, not the education itself. What kind of choice is this being foisted on and paid for by taxpayers? Free Market or more of the same governmental control?
What IS the magic bullet and allure of charter schools that allegedly makes them so much better in terms of education in the eyes of School Choice advocates? Is it the delivery and school expectations from the charters that apparently don’t exist in the traditional public schools? If it is, why aren't we pushing for those things from our public schools now? It's not true free market competition since standards and assessments are still controlled by government regulations. So what is it?
My opinion would be the promise of funds and support from the Bill Gates Foundation and the Jeb Bush Foundation for Excellence in Education since the implementation of more Charter school’s is their prime goal along with Michelle Rhee. This way Bill Gates can additionally put in HIS software with his curriculum of choice (IB or other UN curriculum’). The eventual goal is to have Charter schools somehow be free of the state guidelines and regulations so they can implement their own still using our tax dollars.
You see – no one is watching! Not here in Florida! Not the state or county school boards! Their recently released FCAT scores, of which they give us nothing else to go by, show the Charter schools are not really doing that much better than the public schools.
Charter schools are being instituted as Gulen (terrorist) charter schools, Greek Academies, all the while still using your tax dollars and in addition locate themselves in low income areas so they then can also get from the Federal government Title I funds and the Funds for “free and reduced lunches” along with other federal goodies handed out to these schools. What is wrong with the parents who are sending their children to these schools? They are not filled with Turkish or Greek children, but White and Hispanic!
Taxpayers – you are not watching your children’s schools. Why are you entrusting the most precious thing you have over to the hands of total strangers who for the most part could care less about your children? I am not talking about the teachers – I am talking about the elected school board members and the school superintendents. The only time they support the teachers is when they think any criticism against them personally falls back on the school boards.
Again – HOME SCHOOL! You can do it!
(The Blaze/AP)– Police arrested hundreds of Occupy Oakland protesters last Saturday night for failing to disperse hours after officers used tear gas on over a thousand demonstrators who threw rocks and flares at them and tore down fences.
More help from other police agencies arrived on scene for the mass arrests, with busloads of Alameda County sheriff’s deputies arriving in the downtown area late Saturday night.
Here is video taken from the livestream that shows police warning protestors that mass arrests are about to begin (content warning for profanity):
Police Sgt. Christopher Bolton said the arrests came after protesters marched through downtown Oakland a little before 8 p.m. Saturday, with some of them entering a YMCA building.
At different moments on the livestream video, protestors could be heard yelling “Kill the police” and “F**k the police.”
This clip captures the moment on the livestream that police began the mass arrests:
Earlier in the day, police used tear gas and “flash” grenades on the group Saturday afternoon after some demonstrators threw rocks and other objects at them. Police said three officers were hurt, but they released no details.
This clip shows Occupy Oakland protestors in retreat after police opened fire with rubber bullets and tear gas:
Police said the group assembled at a downtown plaza Saturday morning, with demonstrators threatening to take over the vacant Henry Kaiser Convention Center. The group then marched through the streets, disrupting traffic. The crowd grew as the day wore on, with afternoon estimates ranging from about 1,000 to 2,000 people.
Oakland Police also deployed batons to deal with rowdy protestors, as seen below:
The protesters walked to the vacant convention center, where some started tearing down perimeter fencing and “destroying construction equipment” shortly before 3 p.m., police said.
Police said they issued a dispersal order and used smoke and tear gas after some protesters pelted them with bottles, rocks, burning flares and other objects.
Here police are seen on video firing rubber bullets into the crowd:
Most of the day-time arrests were made when protesters ignored orders to leave and assaulted officers, police said. By 4 p.m., the bulk of the crowd had left the convention center and headed back downtown.
The demonstration comes after Occupy protesters said earlier this week that they planned to move into a vacant building and turn it into a social center and political hub. They also threatened to try to shut down the port, occupy the airport and take over City Hall.
In a statement Friday, Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana said the city would not be “bullied by threats of violence or illegal activity.”
Interim police Chief Howard Jordan also warned that officers would arrest those carrying out illegal actions.
The Associated Press has aerial footage of the protest march in daytime:
Oakland officials said Friday that since the Occupy Oakland encampment was first established in late October, police have arrested about 300 people.
The national Occupy Wall Street movement, which denounces corporate excess and economic inequality, began in New York City in the fall but has been largely dormant lately.
Oakland, New York and Los Angeles were among the cities with the largest and most vocal Occupy protests early on. The demonstrations ebbed after those cities used force to move out hundreds of demonstrators who had set up tent cities.
In Oakland, the police department received heavy criticism for using force to break up earlier protests. Among the critics was Mayor Jean Quan, who said she wasn‘t briefed on the department’s plans. Earlier this month, a court-appointed monitor submitted a report to a federal judge that included “serious concerns” about the department’s handling of the Occupy protests.
In a statement Friday, Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana said the city would not be “bullied by threats of violence or illegal activity.”
Interim police Chief Howard Jordan also warned that officers would arrest those carrying out illegal actions.
The Occupy Wall Street movement, which denounces corporate excess and economic inequality, began in New York City in the fall but has been largely dormant lately.
Oakland, New York and Los Angeles were among the cities with the largest and most vocal Occupy protests early on. The demonstrations ebbed after those cities used force to move out hundreds of demonstrators who had set up tent cities.
In Oakland, the police department received heavy criticism for using force to break up earlier protests. Among the critics was the mayor, who said she wasn’t briefed on the department’s plans.”
Earlier in the day, protestors clashed with police who used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them. You can see a series of video clips below taken from the Occupiers’ livestream camera during the riot:
Here Is The Anti-Obama Administration Letter That Was Read To Almost Every Catholic Sitting In Church Today
The Catholic Church is fighting mad with the Obama Administration, and nearly every Catholic sitting in a pew this weekend heard the reasons why.
The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.
This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services.
To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews who don't follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.
Well, the Catholic Church isn't lying down and taking this.
In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here's the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here's another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette:
Rising GOP star Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) gave an impressive speech on immigration Friday to the Hispanic Leadership Network conference, an event led by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
The Miami Herald reports that Sen. Rubio’s “sweeping” immigration speech took swipes at both Republicans and Democrats for playing politics with an issue so crucial to hispanics, calling for a compassionate approach for dealing with the issue of illegal immigration.
The presumptive top pick for running mate to any of the remaining Republican presidential candidates conquered an early challenge during his remarks, addressing a group of protesters at the event who stood and interrupted Sen. Rubio’s speech.
“Let me tell you guys something; these young men and women raise a very legitimate issue,” Sen. Rubio said. “They came here to a crowd that they know might not be kind to their point of view on issues. And they had the bravery and the courage to raise their voices. I thank God I’m in a country where I can do that and I want them to hear what I have to say.”
CBS Miami notes that in his speech, Sen. Rubio spoke of the main problem in immigration being how to balance and honor “our legacy of immigrants“ with ”our legacy as a nation of laws.”
“It’s impossible to walk a block in Miami, in Los Angeles, San Antonio without running into someone who is being deeply impacted by a broken legal immigration system,” Sen. Rubio told the conference.
Sen. Rubio had a message to fellow conservatives similar to comments he made earlier in the week when he denounced the language used an ad attacking Mitt Romney produced by the campaign of Newt Gingrich.
“For those of us who come from the conservative movement, we must admit that there are those among us who have used rhetoric that is harsh and intolerable, inexcusable, and we must admit, myself included, that sometimes we’ve been too slow in condemning that language for what it is,” Sen.Rubio sad.
“But at the same time, on the left there are those that are using this issue for pure politics creating unrealistic and unreasonable expectations among those in the Latino community across this country.”
Sen. Rubio did not directly address the DREAM Act, but said that “there is broad support in America for the notion that for those children that were brought here at a very young age, by their parents through no fault of their own, who have grown up here their entire lives, and now want to serve in the military or are high academic achievers and want to go to school and contribute to America’s future, I think there is broad bipartisan support for the notion that we should somehow figure out a way to accommodate them.
“Figure out a way to accommodate them in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future.”
Sen. Rubio’s remarks Friday have received acclaim from several media commentators.
“GOP Golden Boy Marco Rubio revealed the magnitude of his star power today,” writes the Business Insider’s Grace Wyler. “Delivering an impassioned speech on immigration that showed exactly why he is the true heir apparent of the Republican Party.”
“Senator Rubio did little to disappoint the party’s faithful,” FIU Professor Ediberto Roman writes in the Huffington Post. “He was indeed impressive. Whether his impressive approach elevates the conversation and results in change that benefits this country is, however, still an open question. Nevertheless, his poise was remarkable.”
Fox News reports that even as Sen.Rubio called for a softer tone on immigration, he reiterated his emphasis for bi-partisan support for the need for a modernized system, a new Visa program, E-Verify, tougher border security and a functional guest worker program.
“I challenge the Republican nominees and all Republicans to not just be the anti-illegal immigration party,” he said. “That’s not who we are and that’s not who we should be, we should be the pro-legal immigration party.”
Here’s a transcript and video of Sen. Rubio’s speech:
I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.
Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:
Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”
Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”
(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)
The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.
Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.
Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?
Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.
Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.
Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.
The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.
Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
[For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]
President Barack Obama has preached that all Americans should pay their fair share in taxes, but a government report finds that tens of thousands of federal employees — from staffers in Congress to federal agencies and even Obama's executive office — collectively owe the government billions in back taxes.
Data from the Internal Revenue Service found that more than 279,000 federal employees and retirees owed $3.4 billion in back income taxes as of Sept. 30, 2010.
The data showed that 467 employees of the House of Representatives, or about 4.2 percent of the workforce, owed more than $8.5 million. In the Senate, 217 employees, or about 3 percent of the workforce, owed $2.13 million.
Obama's staff was not immune, either, with 36 people in Obama's executive office of nearly 1,800 workers — about 2 percent — owing the government $833,970 in back taxes.
Obama used part of his State of the Union address Tuesday night to promote economic fairness, arguing for changes in the tax code that would create a minimum tax rate of at least 30 percent on anyone making more than $1 million. The finances of one of his chief Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, has been scrutinized because he, like many millionaires, pays a lower rate because most of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate.
The IRS report attracted the attention of Republicans, who said it undercut the president's argument on taxes. "If Obama wants people to pay their 'fair share,' perhaps he should start with his own staff," tweeted Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.
White House officials noted that the delinquency rate among executive office staff had fallen from nearly 3 percent in 2008. In 2009, 41 employees in the president's executive office owed about $830,000, representing about 2.3 percent of its workforce.
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said the annual report was released by the IRS because there is a "high standard for government employees."
"Though the report shows that fewer executive office employees owe taxes than in the last year of the previous administration and we expect all employees to pay their taxes in full, more needs to be done to ensure compliance and the president has asked his team to work on this issue," Brundage said.
Overall, the total amount owed is down slightly from September 2009, when more than 282,000 federal workers owed $3.3 billion in taxes.
The report does not offer specific explanations for the delinquencies. Many people who owe back taxes file returns but cannot pay the full amount when their taxes are due, said IRS spokesman Anthony Burke. Others may be disputing the bill, may have filed jointly with a spouse who owes taxes or may have had their tax bills increased by an audit and cannot pay the higher amount.
The statistics on federal employees do not include those who are on payment plans. The IRS doesn't provide a comparable delinquency rate for income taxes paid by the public.
Among Cabinet agencies, the departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rates, at nearly 4 percent. The Treasury Department had the lowest delinquency rate, at nearly 1 percent.
Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?
On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in Happersett:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 )
Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet. Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.
The Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the changes made at Justia were documented over time. Among the first responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.
Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913). Notice that the case name "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.
The cover-up simply reeks. While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET that there were more cases which had also been "mangled," there is no way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the three-year period in question. Minor v. Happersett simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint on the internet at a critical juncture in history — the election of 2008.
McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)
On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.
In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court — or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested — to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot. The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.
Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online. Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library. But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia. If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent.
In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them. For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do. Justia's database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.
If you search Justia's Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe is listed. There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317. There are links to the preview as well as "Full Text." However, all of the links are broken, leading back to Justia's front page.
Additionally, Justia's publication of a following 1977 5th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.
It would be instructive to track the timeline of changes in the Wayback Machine, but Justia is steadfastly preventing that transparency. Furthermore, if Justia continues its previous pattern, the links (eg: http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/1317/) will be restored upon publication of this article. Take your screenshots now.
With numerous state-level challenges being prepared by opponents of Obama's eligibility for 2012, McCarthy v. Briscoe will be a required citation. That it continues to be unavailable at Justia seriously calls into question Stanley's contention that the cases on Justia's servers were mangled by an innocent coding error.
This claim of innocent technical error was debunked by Dr. David Hansen, a Ph.D. in computer science. McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) at Justia shows a completely different pattern of information removal from what could be explained away by a single coding error which erased case names.
The removal of prior versions of cases from the Wayback Machine by Justia amounts to nothing less than supreme hypocrisy considering Stanley's high stature as a leading light championing transparency of legal information for the public.
Use at your own risk
Justia in 2008 tangled with the State of Oregon when it downloaded and republished the State Statutes without either informing the state or gaining its permission, in violation of copyright law. Dexter Johnson, the head of the Office of Oregon State Legislative Counsel Committee reported that the Committee received information that the State Statutes were available at a website other than the state. Upon investigation, the Committee ultimately decided not to pursue legal action against Justia for copyright violation; instead, "the committee decided to waive its copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes going forward," said Johnson in a phone interview.
It is left to a user of Justia to verify the information to be found within its pages, despite a disclaimer of "Full Text of Case" on its pages. Upon inquiry with the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe Estrada, deputy public information officer of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded that "the official opinions of the Supreme Court are posted on the Court's Website and we don't generally monitor other sites."
Johnson says Oregon also does not have a monitoring policy in place. When asked how a person using Justia's services would know if he were receiving accurate information or not, Johnson replied:
The only way, it seems to me, would be to compare that with what's on the legislature's website. In which case you might as well go directly to the legislature's website. It's one of the reasons why we had originally suggested that they have their website simply point in the direction of our own.
Justia publishes SCOTUS cases with the positive affirmation "Full Text of Case." Clearly this was not done with regards to the specific opinions it redacted and covered up. Whether a violation of law or not, various non-profit agencies, students, law firms, and private researchers who relied upon Justia's services remain in the dark, unable to determine if their research materials were altered by Justia, as the company has released neither what it redacted nor in what cases. Without an effective means of verifying accuracy, Justia's transparency and credibility are questionable.
It turns out that Justia received additional help from their close counterpart in the open government information movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud. Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other than George Soros. Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO's top benefactor. Stanley is also a co-convenor of Malamud's Law.gov organization, which, despite appearances, is not a government entity.
PRO makes available a huge database of court cases to other organizations such as the Cornell Legal Institute, which has now been dragged into the Justia mess through a case that cements Minor v. Happersett as defining "Natural Born Citizen." Ex Parte: Lockwood states:
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since[.]" (Emphasis added.)
However, at Cornell, the opinion is cut off right after "Minor v.". Someone searching for "Minor v. Happersett" will be detoured from this case and its holding in support of Minor's precedence. Cornell's version of Ex Parte: Lockwood is completely mangled. Yet Lockwood helps prove that the decision in Minor created a legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen," something the national narrative states that no Supreme Court Case has ever done, in part because Minor's importance was effectively obscured.
There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen." Justia and PRO champion freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the law to suit a political goal. Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's entire Supreme Court server. The only thing hidden now is the evidence of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the public domain.
Tim Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at time of publication. Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts:
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions online in which dozens of references to a key court definition of “natural-born citizen” vanished during the time Barack Obama was seeking the presidency.
Supreme Court case referencing 'natural-born citizen' altered while Obama campaigned
A service that posted copies of U.S. Supreme Court decisions online in which dozens of references to a key court definition of “natural-born citizen” vanished during the time Barack Obama was seeking the presidency now is explaining that the alterations were made by programmers.
Writer Declan McCullagh explained that Stanley said the numerous references to the Minor v. Happersett case in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 were dropped or altered because, “Justia’s programmers typed in “.*” (which matches any character) when creating a regex. It’s now an “\s” (which matches only spaces).”
The writer explained that “regex” is a term for “regular expression.”
New York Times best-seller, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, which addresses Obama’s Social Security Number and a host of other disputes, is now available for
immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND
But there was no definitive comment about what operation was being pursued when the changes were made or why programming was needed for opinions from the high court that presumably would not be subject to editing, alterations or changes.
Justia declined another request from WND today to respond to questions about the issue.
The issue developed when a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of “natural-born citizen” were altered at Justia.com.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
In the dispute over Obama’s eligibility, dating back to before his election, it has been argued that the Minor case does not apply. Some have argued that it applies only to voting rights.
Leo C. Donofrio, whose original Donofrio v. Wells against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1 “natural-born citizen” demand for presidents because of his dual citizenship at birth, released research suggesting that even as Obama was preparing to be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, someone was scrubbing court records of that case.
“New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the runup to the ’08 election,” he reported
He initially reported several months ago on a few of the adjustments in the text of the Supreme Court opinions at the online resource, “but last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all U.S. Supreme Court cases which cite ‘Minor v. Happersett’ as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.”
Arguably, under the definition in the case, neither candidate in 2008, Democrat Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain, would be eligible. McCain was born outside of the United States in the Panama Canal Zone, and Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, raising a direct conflict with the Happersett’s requirement for a birth “of parents who were its citizens.”
The report from C/net confirmed that Justia noted the opinions as posted were inaccurate. And Donofrio concluded that the “deception” could have been undertaken on behalf either of Obama or GOP Sen. John McCain.
“This is the very definition of ‘Orwellian’ Fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers,” Donofrio said at the time.
Stanley, who was described by Donofrio as being associated with “Obama For America 2008,” told C/net that the changes have “nothing to do with President Obama.”
In fact, he told C/net there have been internal discussions about how to prevent the situation from developing in the future.
But Donofrio suggested to WND that the programmers may have gotten involved in the files when the site was being updated – probably late in 2006 – to include hyperlinks in the documents.
But he said he has screen views of the files showing that the update was accomplished by Justia without any evidence of issues with the Minor v. Happersett reference. He said specifically the case reference was there after the site was updated.
He said it was months later that the site sent programmers to work again – and he’s convinced this time it was to change the Minor references.
Then when the current story erupted, he said, Justia blocked access through the Internet’s Wayback Machine, a resource for time-dated pages from Internet sites, to U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
Donofrio told WND that action alone is a tacit admission there was some manipulation going on. And he wrote on his website, “A criminal investigation is required.”
The public information officer for the U.S. Supreme Court, Kathleen Arberg, has declined to respond to a WND call and email query about whether there could be any ramifications from posting an incomplete court document and representing it as the full document.
Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.
The case from 1913 was an appeal out of New York that concluded: “Where a point involving sufficiency of the complaint is not raised and defendant does not challenge the statement of the court that it supposes the point will not be raised, it is too late to raise it in this court.
“This court concurs in the conclusion reached by the district court that the residence in a foreign country of one whose certificate of naturalization was attacked as fraudulent was intended to be and was of a permanent nature and justified the proceeding on the part of the United States to cancel the certificate under § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906.”
Using the online Wayback machine, Donofrio found a 2006 image of the pertinent reference to Minor v. Happersett in the document. The reference is near the highlighted word:
Then Donofrio found a 2008 image of the same page, but the Minor v. Happersett reference had disappeared:
A subsequent image of the same page, from 2010, revealed that the Minor v. Happersett still was gone:
Finally, the current image, as of Friday afternoon, revealed that the reference had been restored:
Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: “This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.”
She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, “but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.
“The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the Internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical law library,” she wrote.
There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn’t eligible because he wasn’t born in Hawaii as he’s said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen,” disqualified dual citizens.
The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery.
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band
LEGAL RESOURCES COMPANY REMOVED ELIGIBILITY RULINGS AND REFERENCES TO NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN DEFINITIONS BY SUPREME COURT IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION
Evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions on eligibility rulings were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the run up to the ’08 election. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the run up to the ’08 election. My prior report documented the scrubbing of just two cases. But last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all US Supreme Court cases which cite “Minor v. Happersett” as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.
Since Justia placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state “Full Text of Case”, personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the US Supreme Court.
At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.
We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked. That being said, Justia’s reaction to my last report mirrored the deception of the sabotage. Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all. And they placed “.txt robots” on their URL’s for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia.
TWO LAYERS OF SABOTAGE
In all 25 instances of tampering, the case name “Minor v. Happersett” was removed from Justia’s publication of each SCOTUS opinion which cited to it. Anyone searching for cases citing Minor at Justia or Google were led into a maze of confusion. In some instances, not only was the case name scrubbed, the numerical citation was also removed along with whole sentences of text.
But the deception goes deeper still. There are three official citations for Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Researchers will either search for the case by name, or by any of these three citations. Since it is common for legal researchers to query both the name of the case and/or the official numerical citation, these opinions were tampered for both.
In Kansas v. Colorado, Kepner v. U.S., Schick v. U.S., and South Carolina v. U.S., the citation left behind after scrubbing was “88 U.S. 422″. In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the citation left behind was 88 U.S. 448. Minor officially begins at 88 U.S. 162 and finishes at 88 U.S. 178. So 88 U.S. 422, and 448 are completely bogus. (See collage of screenshots.) The other 20 cases cite to actual pages in Minor, but not to the official citations. While Justia linked from the bogus citations back to the first page of Minor, anyone searching for US Supreme Court cases citing Minor by querying the official citations would have been thwarted.
This further establishes that the sabotage undertaken at Justia was surgically precise. The reality that both candidates eligibility was questionable according to Minor v. Happersett appears to have been known and handled by somebody’s legal team. However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008″. (Dianna Cotter’s article will take a closer look at Tim Stanley.)
RECAP OF PREVIOUS REPORT
On July 1, 2011 I published a report: “Justia.com Caught red Handed Hiding references To Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Opinions“. The article featured screenshots and links to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine which chronicled tampering with two US Supreme Court opinions, Boyd v. Nebraska and Pope v. Williams. Both cases cite to Minor v. Happersett, the only US Supreme Court decision to directly construe the natural-born citizen clause in relation to a citizenship issue. The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born citizens:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” (Emphasis added.)
McCain clearly does not meet the definition since he was born in Panama. And since Obama’s father was never a US citizen, the current POTUS doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen either. Minor v. Happersett has, therefore, been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign. Falsehoods about the case have been widely spread. The two most flagrant are:
1) that Minor was only a voting rights case – not a citizenship case – and therefore the Court’s discussion of federal citizenship was dictum and not precedent
2) that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment
Both criticisms are false. Unfortunately, many of the Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor as precedent on citizenship were scrubbed by Justia along with other cases that continued citing Minor as good law on voting rights issues well after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. As you will see from the holding in a Supreme Court opinion from 1980, the contention that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment is false.
PATTERN OF JUSTIA SUBTERFUGE
The tampering exhibits a very noticeable pattern. Below, I will include screenshots as well as links to the Wayback Machine which illustrate this pattern clearly.
In most of the cases scrubbed at Justia, the Wayback Machine evidence shows that the very first snapshots taken of Justia URL’s for these cases was in 2006, with a couple of snapshots taken in early 2007. In all of the cases, the first snapshots exhibit that Justia originally published the cases correctly as they appear in the official US Supreme Court reporters. However, by November 2008, all 25 opinions had been sabotaged.
Some cases scrubbed the words “Minor v. Happersett” every time they appeared, and some left it in one time, but removed it in other places. References to The Slaughterhouse Cases, Scott v. Sandford, and Osborn v. Bank of United States (citizenship cases which prove troublesome for Obama’s eligibility) were also scrubbed along with full sentences from majority opinions (as was done in Pope v. Williams), and dissents (as was done in U.S. v. Wong Km Ark). The scrubbing was surgically precise as to the issue of POTUS eligibility. The Wayback Machine snapshots prove that the tampering stayed in effect through the final snapshots taken in 2010.
RECAP OF MY INITIAL REPORT REGARDING “BOYD v. NEBRASKA” and “POPE v. WILLIAMS.“
After I published the first report on July 1, 2011, the Boyd and Pope cases were un-scrubbed at Justia so that Minor v. Happersett was reinstated to each opinion, and the citations were corrected. The other 23 cases, known only to the sabateur(s), were also un-scrubbed. Perhaps they thought nobody would ever discover the depth of the operation, because they failed to place blocking robots on the other 23 cases. This allowed us to look back into history and see the tampering unfold for each case on the Wayback timeline.
The initial report documented that Justia.com had removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from its published opinions of Boyd and Pope. The report also documented that, in the Pope opinion at Justia, full sentences discussing Minor v. Happersett were removed thereby changing – not only the citations in the case – but also the Court’s stated opinion.
Within an hour after I published that report, Justia.com had re-instated the opinions to include the missing references to Minor and the missing text without commenting or noting the revisions. Justia then further covered the trail of deceit by placing robots on their URL’s for Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, so that access to the Wayback Machine’s snapshots is no longer possible for those cases. (Should they now scrub the robots, here are screenshots for Justia’s Boyd and Pope opinions which show the robot blocking.)
Justia’s stated mission is as follows:
To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.”
Justia CEO and founder, Tim Stanley, is known as a leading light advocating for freedom of legal information on the web. Stanley was also the founder of Findlaw, which he sold to West Publishing for $37 million. So, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, and therefore Stanley is the last person who should be using robots to hide previous versions of Supreme Court cases (which are in the public domain anyway).
I haven’t spoken to Tim Stanley or anyone else at Justia. I did not think it prudent, seeing as how Justia tried to cover their tracks after my last report, to contact them prior to releasing the rest of the evidence I gathered from the Wayback Machine. I needed to publish before they could place robots on the URL’s for the other 23 tampered opinions.
OTHER BLOGGERS ARE COMING TO THE STORY.
Other bloggers following the developments discussed herein will be contacting Justia.com in the days ahead as this story develops. I held back on publishing this follow-up so I could enlist the help of these other bloggers and journalists who have already viewed the evidence. Dianna Cotter, who has published articles for Accuracy In Media and Examiner.com, has documented everything, and she has worked closely with me in the days leading up to this report. She will publish a follow-up later today at Examiner.com.
Furthermore, whoever was responsible for placing the robots on Boyd and Pope at Justia should know that Dianna Cotter and I have forwarded and discussed the information published below with writers at The Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, Free Republic and many other publications.
I have also forwarded evidence of the tampering (screenshots, Wayback Machine URLs and downloaded HTML for each Wayback snapshot) to Cindy Simpson (who published an article yesterday at American Thinker which discusses Minor v. Happersett). I have also shared the evidence with attorney Mario Apuzzo who is writing an analysis of Justia’s sabotage of Wong Kim Ark, a case which was subjected to multiple instances of tampering by Justia. (I will update my report with links to the reports of Dianna Cotter and Mario Apuzzo when they are published later today.)
I reached out to people I trusted before publishing so that all of the evidence could be documented by multiple sources, media publications and attorneys. The evidence has been viewed and documented by so many sources now that any attempt by Justia to block it, the way that it blocked the evidence of my first report, will be futile. This tampering happened at Justia.com. That is a fact. The questions which need to be answered now are who ordered it and who carried out the subversive plot.
Additionally, the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was forwarded the evidence. I have personally spoken with one staffer and one official there. Dianna Cotter has also been in contact with the SCOTUS PIO.
TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018.
Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him.
"Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law…"
One of my earliest childhood memories is of my parents talking about Nixon and the Watergate scandal. I remember the newspaper headline: “Nixon Resigns!” President Nixon’s fight against court subpoenas made international news. Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.
Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.
The rule of law, and our three-branch system of government, now hang in the balance. If the Georgia court issues a ruling on the merits and an order finding Obama in contempt of court, and if that contempt order actually results in real punishment of some kind, then we will still have a Constitutional Republic. If this doesn’t happen, then Obama will have been rewarded for showing complete contempt for the judicial branch.
Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up. He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.
If the Georgia Court rules that Supreme Court precedent must be followed and therefore Obama simply does not meet the minimum Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, then we will at least have succeeded in finding one court in the nation willing to do its job. If that court finds Obama in contempt of court, then we still have three viable branches of government. The Georgia court has the authority to do both of these things. The world should be holding its breath.
Unfortunately the world is apparently unaware that a great Republic is on life support. The Roman Empire died a slow death. It’s death was so gradual that few people living at that time probably noticed the individual events that marked the death throes of that great empire. Apparently the same is true of America. Yesterday marked a stunning turn of events in the constant power struggle between the three branches of our government. Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.
I will certainly try to explain this to the court in our proposed findings of fact and law that the court requested we file before February 5th.
All of your encouragement and prayers have been greatly appreciated. They are needed even more over the next few weeks. This battle is FAR from over. And it has taken on importance beyond what we predicted (which is truly astounding). Please tell everyone you know about Obama’s contempt of the judicial branch. Please explain to them what it really means. Even those that agree with Obama politically and disagree with our ballot challenge should be shocked, appalled, and scared of Obama’s contempt for the judicial system.
Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
What really happened yesterday was the judge decided to award a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT to the plaintiff’s since the defendant didn’t show up. The defendant was Obama!
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 was the longest day I would never want to re-live but feel it necessary to document for posterity. The day had its ups and downs and ins and outs and Article II, Section 1.5 Constitutionalist, also known as “birthers,” “racists,” “wing-nuts” and “fringe” were holding our collective breaths and praying like never before.
The day actually began much earlier when, for the first time in over three years, a judge had agreed to hear a lawsuit that would require Barack Obama, leader of the free world and most powerful man on earth, to appear in a Georgia courtroom. This time it was not a federal case as in many challenges brought by attorney Orly Taitz and others, but instead, an administrative judge for the state of Georgia would hear the case. Judge Michael Malihi scheduled the hearing and issued subpoenas. Obama’s Atlanta lawyer, Michael Jablonski, quickly issued a Motion to Dismiss. Of course we expected this. Obama’s dream team of Perkins Coie and his stable of attorneys across the United States and under the auspices of Eric Holder’s DOJ and Elena Kagan, Obama’s pre-election counsel and now sitting Supreme Court Justice would come down on Orly Taitz like an iron fist. But on January 3, their Motion to Dismiss was DENIED.
This was big. Would we really have our day in court? It was almost too good to be true. Dozens of lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility had been dismissed for “lack of standing,” “wrong jurisdiction” or “procedural errors.” But this time a judge actually moved our case forward because he read the Georgia law correctly in that it explicitly gives Georgia residents the right to challenge candidates wanting to be on the state ballot.
We blogged, we called, we emailed and got the word out to as many people as we could. We anxiously monitored the mainstream news but again, nothing except a small mention on FOX Brett Baier’s “Grapevine,” where he tossed in the “birther” epithet meant to discredit us. We were used to that. The lawsuit moved forward.
Obama’s lawyer, Jablonski, spoke to reporters saying the lawsuit would be dismissed just as every challenge has been defeated and Obama would not be going to Georgia. Of course the traditional media carried his story to the ends of the earth. But we moved on Orly would line up her witnesses and arrange to pay their way to Georgia. We had Susan Daniels who discovered Obama’s stolen identity in a CT social security number and experts on Adobe and a former INS agent. All these witnesses had overwhelming evidence of fraud and forgery. The copy of Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website confirmed that Obama is not natural born as required in the Constitution. Early on Wednesday, we learned that Leo Donofrio, renown authority on the Constitution and federalist papers, had filed a 200 page Amicus (friend of the court) Brief which joined the documented evidence irrefutably proving that Obama is not a natural-born Citizen and even his status of “native born Citizen” is questionable because of the suspected birth document forgery.
Within hours, Orly Taitz and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in two other lawsuits that had been consolidated were copied on a letter from Obama’s Atlanta attorney, Jablonski. The letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp to stop the hearing. It came at approximately 3:00pm but by five o’clock, SOS Kemp responded to Jablonski rejecting the request and stated it would not be judicious given the hearing is set for the next morning. He added, “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
About the same time I was working diligently to get the latest news out to my contacts including posting the information on Facebook, I got a comment and link to Leo Donofrio’s naturalborncitizen blog. The news was stunning. Leo was alerted to information in the government’s own INS/ICE handbook delineating a distinct difference in “natural-born citizen” and “native-born” citizen. I scrambled. Did my Birther Summit team know about this? I painstakingly emailed the information to my 500 or so contacts and posted on Facebook. It was too let to get it into the court records but it didn’t matter. Our case was air-tight as it was.
It had been a long day and I began receiving emails from friends and supporters saying they would look for me in the live-stream video provided by The Birther Summit and Art2superPAC sites. I didn’t have the energy to tell them I wasn’t going to Atlanta. I could not afford to go but it was nice so many people really thought I would be there. This is what we all worked so hard for.
There was so much traffic on the live video feeds and many of us had long periods of blackouts but I did see Orly and the other attorneys leave to go with the judge to his chambers. What really happened yesterday was the judge decided to award a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT to the plaintiff’s since the defendant didn’t show up. But an abbreviated hearing took place. The first two cases were heard and Orly presented her witnesses and argued her case and the evidence all went into the record. We had our day in court.
To Watch a Video of the Eligibility Hearing Click Here: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing
Private Investigator says Beck Staff Threatened by Soros Operatives;News Corporation Failed to Protect Employees, Forcing Beck’s Ouster
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JANUARY 27, 2012
Cliff Kincaid Kincaid@comcast.net 443-964-8208
Cliff Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI), a public policy organization, is leading a “Bring Back Beck” campaign to return Glenn Beck to the Fox News Channel, where he had a popular program devoted to analyzing current and future events, including the role of hedge fund billionaire George Soros, in the American political environment. Kincaid has produced several articles examining the role of Soros-funded groups in forcing Beck’s departure from the channel last year.
Kincaid recently learned of a private investigator, Douglas J. Hagmann, with information that the Soros role in Beck’s ouster was deeper and more insidious than previously realized. In order to further the public’s right to know as to how the First Amendment right of freedom of the press is being manipulated and subverted by covert forces in U.S. politics, Kincaid asked Hagmann, who is the CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network for permission to pass on this information. He has agreed, as long as the identities of the sources of information are deleted. There are several sources with information about strange goings-on at News Corporation in regard to the Glenn Beck matter, in which the most vulnerable of the news channel staff members have come under pressure not to report certain facts and information about President Obama personally. But Hagmann says the tipping point in the matter of Glenn Beck leaving the channel came when Beck began a series of programs on Soros, labeled by Beck the “Puppet Master” behind Obama and the progressive movement.
Hagmann informed Kincaid of the following:
“One of my sources, beginning in the first part of 2011, told me that the corporate leadership of News Corporation (the parent company of Fox News) began to put pressure on Glenn Beck — and especially his support staff — about certain topics that were considered ‘off limits.’ This source stated that Beck was advised not to focus on George Soros, as there were certain fiduciary relationships he was not privy to between Soros and either News Corporation or one or more of their board members/corporate staff.”
Hagmann went on, “I was informed that News Corporation and/or Fox News Channel officers actually had a meeting with Soros representatives, during which company officials were advised to stop subjecting Soros to on-air scrutiny. This pressure eventually forced Beck off the air, as the Fox News Channel personality became concerned about the physical safety and security of his own personnel.”
Hagmann added that his sources stated that it was Beck’s concern over the safety of certain staff members, the most vulnerable and exposed among them, who were being overtly intimidated. He stated that one young woman, who became a primary source after being vetted and determined to be credible, was genuinely afraid, not only for her career but for her life and the life of her child. It was surreal, she told Hagmann, that she could be subjected to intimidation through surveillance and veiled threats because of her position to Glenn Beck. At some point, Hagmann added, it appeared Mr. Beck knew he could protect himself and his family, but not everyone involved in the program. “I strongly suspect, based on my professional experience as an investigator for the last 26 years, that Mr. Beck made a tremendous career sacrifice for the safety of others. That speaks volumes about Mr. Beck’s integrity, character and concern for others,” added Hagmann.
ASI President Cliff Kincaid said that investigator Hagmann’s information, while non-specific at this point because of concerns over revealing the identities of sources, is extremely troubling, as it concerns the ability of the American people to get access to information of a critical nature. Kincaid said that the background, history, and business dealings of George Soros, a convicted inside trader, are fair game, especially during a presidential campaign year, and that it is troubling that the one channel examining this matter would facilitate the dismissal of the one news personality willing to do so. “If there were security concerns about Fox News personnel,” Kincaid said, “additional protections for those employees should have been provided. News Corporation certainly has the resources to provide this kind of security. The reaction of News Corporation should have been to protect their employees, not to wash their hands of any involvement in the matter, forcing Beck to act for the good of his employees by leaving the company. As such, the episode smacks of capitulation to unlawful threats. If the threats were to continue under these circumstances, it should have been a matter for the public to know about, in order for the public to be made aware of the forces around George Soros acting on his behalf to intimidate the news media. This is an issue of major public importance. It is time for the facts to be made known. ”
Kincaid urged an inquiry, saying, “In the same way that News Corporation and its chairman, Rupert Murdoch, have welcomed an investigation of the company in the telephone hacking scandal that erupted in Britain, in regard to the now-defunct News of the World property, we ask that Mr. Murdoch order an independent probe into the circumstances behind the ouster of Glenn Beck from the Fox News Channel. The results of such an inquiry, which should examine any meetings held between News Corporation/Fox News Channel and representatives of George Soros or Soros-funded groups, should be released to the public. Such a probe should expose and resolve any potential conflicts of interest between News Corporation board members and/or employees and Soros financial interests.”
This is from the News Corporation document “Standards of Business Conduct.”
This is the article about Soros in the Wall Street Journal that Murdoch was tweeting about
News Corporation Board of Directors
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
José María Aznar
Peter L. Barnes
James W. Breyer
David F. DeVoe
Sir Roderick I. Eddington
|Joel I. Klein
Executive Vice President
CEO, Education Division
Andrew S.B. Knight
James R. Murdoch
Chairman and CEO,
Lachlan K. Murdoch
Arthur M. Siskind
John L. Thornton
Stanley S. Shuman
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Brian Lewis, Executive Vice President
Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
If Republican voters had only Thursday’s GOP debate in Florida on which to base their votes, Rick Santorum would be our next candidate for President of the United States. In a debate that was considerably more lively than the Brian Williams-hosted NBC snoozefest last week, Santorum came off as passionate, principled and knowledgeable. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate and was satisfactory as usual. Clearly Blitz and the CNN higher-ups were anxious to see Newt and Mitt go after each other on stage. Goodness knows CNN could use the ratings boost. They got their wish as the two front-runners spent the first 20 minutes of the debate ripping into each other on various issues, including negative ads and bad investments. It made for good t.v. and Romney was more animatedthan he’s appeared at any other time in this whole process…but while the Speaker and the Governor were going for the respective jugulars a strange thing happened. Rick Santorum showed up. He took every opportunity to point out the uselessness of two big government candidates (as he claims they are) arguing about who is more fiscally conservative and highlighted his extensive knowledge on issues of foreign affairs and threats to the safety of Americans.
Don’t get me wrong – each man on stage had his own moment at times. Any of these candidates would make a better President than the current Blamer-in-Chief and they all gave adequate reasons why that was true. However, there was something about the way Romney and Gingrich went after each other Thursday night that came off as..well, petty. Santorum (and Paul, for that matter) seized the opportunity. As both men were distracted arguing against each other, Santorum made his case for why he thinks he is the candidate with the sharpest contrast to Obama, and therefore most suited to run against him in the general elections. He laid bare Romney’s greatest weakness – Romneycare; and he chastised Newt on his global warming demons.
As usual, Ron Paul ruled the roost on domestic spending and issues of healthcare. Ron Paul has a supreme understanding of the disaster of socialized medicine. He is old enough to remember when medical care was affordable to everyone; he remembers the days when you paid your family doctor when you saw him, from your own wallet, and not through a behemoth third party. Its Paul’s foreign policy strategy that sinks him as a viable candidate. His “let’s just get to know each better and be friends” approach to despots like Castro and Chavez likely did very little to endear him to Florida voters, many of whom have had direct personal experience with the horrors of the Castro regime.
For the record, I see no problem with discussing issues of space and the race to colonize the moon. Many people seem annoyed by it, and perhaps rightfully so in the face of the enormous fiscal challenges we are currently facing. However, I see it as an important discussion. It speaks to the superiority of American ideas and innovation, something our current President has worked very hard to suppress. When Newt speaks of going to the moon, he is talking about vision, not practicalities. I see value in that and so I do not discourage such talk. I do agree that it is a back-burner issue right now. We have to ensure there IS an America going forward before we can talk about getting America back to the moon.
Hands down, this debate goes to Rick Santorum. It’s hard to tell if this stellar debate performance will turn into a bump in Florida for Santorum’s campaign; but if Newt and Mitt have done enough damage to each other in that state, Santorum could gain a surprising turnout come Tuesday’s primary vote. Florida is a winner take all state, so it seems unlikely that Santorum would win outright, but a strong finish could give the Senator some considerable momentum. All eyes turn to Florida Tuesday night. Be sure to check in frequently with Conservative Daily News for up to the minute reporting as the polls close and votes are counted.
JUDGE WANTED TO IMMEDIATELY ENTER DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST OBAMA OBAMA’S GEORGIA BALLOT HEARING: JUDGE WANTED TO IMMEDIATELY ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA WANTED TO IMMEDIATELY ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA
As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened today. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.
Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.
We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia.
Back to work . . . more to come!
UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, Carl Swensson: To all my friends in battle,
The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.
Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment. - Carl
You can also find a blow by blow account of today's hearing in Georgia here: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
Article II Super PAC reports they will post an archive of today's hearing soon as it is available: http://www.art2superpac.com
Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps.
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.
His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”
The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1975 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”
The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.
Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.
Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.
He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.
“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”
Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.
She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.
Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.
Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.
The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.
Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.
“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”
But the judge thought otherwise.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.
Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.
Bob Andres, email@example.com Around the Plaintiff's table Kevin Powell (from left), Thomas Hatfield, Carl Swensson, John Sampson, and Mark Hatfield greeted each other before the hearing. The plaintiffs contend President Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot.
Bob Andres, firstname.lastname@example.org The defendant's side was empty as the Obama camp decided to boycott the hearing.
Ross D. Franklin, AP A Georgia judge did not issue a ruling on a 'birther' challenge as to whether President Barack Obama can appear on the Georgia ballot.
Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.
"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.
Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here — a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.
Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.
In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote.
Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken — except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.
Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1660 (HB1660) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”
The bill is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: #2 Civil. Visit this link for information on this Subcommittee.
The bill reads as follows:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
Virginia is now the first state in the nation to introduce and consider a version of the Liberty Preservation Act (click here for model legislation for your state) in response to unconstitutional kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sources close the to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to ten states considering various laws or resolutions in response to the NDAA in the 2012 state legislative session.
CLICK HERE to track the status of NDAA nullification legislation around the country.
CLICK HERE to view a suite of model resolutions and legislation available for introduction in your area.
*****UPDATE 10:32AM – CONTACT INFO FOR SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS:*****
Courts of Justice Civil Law Subcommittee
Chairman Sal Iaquinto email@example.com 804-698-1084
Delegate Terry Kilgore firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1001
Delegate Manoli Loupassi email@example.com 804-698-1068
Delegate Gregory Habeeb firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1008
Delegate Peter Farrell email@example.com 804-698-1056
Delegate Randy Minchew firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1010
Delegate Joe Johnson email@example.com 804-698-1004
Delegate David Toscano firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1057
Delegate Jennifer McClellan email@example.com 804-698-1071
Remaining Courts of Justice Committee Members
Chairman Dave Albo firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1042
Delegate Robert Bell email@example.com 804-698-1058
Delegate Ben Cline firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1024
Delegate Todd Gilbert email@example.com 804-698-1015
Delegate Jackson Miller firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1050
Delegate Ronald Villanueva email@example.com 804-698-1021
Delegate Richard Morris firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1064
Delegate Vivian Watts email@example.com 804-698-1039
Delegate Charniele Herring firstname.lastname@example.org 804-698-1046
Passed out of subcommittee today – 6 Yay – 3 Nay
YEAS–Iaquinto, Kilgore, Habeeb, Farrell, Minchew, Johnson–6.
NAYS–Loupassi, Toscano, McClellan–3.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin – and visit his personal blog – www.michaelboldin.com
IS IT CONTEMPT OF COURT?
Atty. Orly Taitz has published a letter written from Obama attorney Michael Jablonski to the Georgia Secretary of State stating that he is refusing to appear on his client’s behalf at the hearing scheduled for Thursday morning in Atlanta.
Judge Michael Malihi had denied Jablonski’s request to quash subpoenas issued by Taitz seeking information from Obama on his background, including a certified original birth certificate, school records, social security number application, and documentation of any other names he might have used in the past.
Three sets of plaintiffs and their attorneys have filed ballot challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be placed on the state ballot. Over the past four years, questions have arisen about whether or not Obama qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Also at issue is the authenticity of the “birth certificate” which Obama revealed to the public on April 27, 2011 and the stonewalling on the part of Hawaii Department of Health officials to release the original allegedly held in their files.
Taitz flew to Georgia from California on Tuesday and is representing four presidential candidates and a registered Georgia voter. Two other plaintiffs are represented by Georgia state representative and Atty. Mark Hatfield, and another registered voter is represented by Atty. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation.
Obama claims that his father was a British citizen and that therefore he, Obama II, was born with dual citizenship, raising questions about dual allegiance and whether or not a dual citizen is a “natural born Citizen.” Some attorneys and scholars have stated that the citizenship of the parents or the father is equally important to, or perhaps more important than, the physical birthplace of the candidate. In April 2008, Sen. John McCain was declared a “natural born Citizen” by Senate Resolution 511 by virtue of his two U.S.-citizen parents, although McCain was born in Panama, to which Obama gave an assenting vote.
The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel is often referenced for matters of determining citizenship and to define the term “natural born Citizen.”
Editor’s Note: A search for Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website in search of his claim of dual citizenship at birth now leads to AttackWatch.com.
Obama traveled to Iowa and Arizona today where he and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer were noted to have had an apparently angry interchange. While it has been reported that he will remain in the West tomorrow, the official White House presidential schedule states that Obama has “no public schedule.” Each morning this week, the schedule has been empty, apparently updated day by day rather than weeks or months in advance.
The constitutional eligibility of Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico, and of Rick Santorum, whose parents were born in Italy with naturalization dates unknown, has also been raised but is not a topic at the hearing scheduled for the 26th.
In his letter, Jablonski said that “The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued.” He disparaged Taitz’s prior work in the case Rhodes v. McDonald, quoting from Judge Clay D. Land’s decision which claimed that Taitz had “abused her privilege.” Regarding the presiding judge, Jablonski stated to Kemp that “the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office.”
There has not been a proceeding to date, but rather, only administrative motions which have been filed by each side. Jablonski concluded his letter:
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.
Very truly yours,
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
On January 24, 2012, during the State of the Union address, Obama stated that everyone needed to “play by the same set of rules.” But is he?
Update, 10:10 p.m. ET: In a letter dated January 25, 2012, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp responded to Michael Jablonski request to cancel the hearing by stating that he had referred the matter to the judge for the purpose of having all of the evidence examined and reviewed. ”While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. §21-2-5.
Kemp added that if Jablonski and his client, Obama, decide not to appear at the hearing, they “do so at their own peril.”
The Post & Email had reported on the case of two registered voters in Georgia who had sent a request to Kemp to provide the informations he had in his possession to determine that Obama’s name would be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot. When no response was received, a follow-up letter was sent asking that Obama’s name be withheld from the Georgia ballot “until you can find that he has acceptable qualifications…”
When Kemp failed to respond, the voter asked Superior Court Judge David Barrett to convene a special grand jury to investigate Kemp’s inaction on the matter. In his response, Judge Barrett cited a law which allows for the convening of a special grand jury only in counties with a certain population, which the citizen’s did not. Barrett refused the citizen’s request on that and other technicalities.
Kemp responded to Atty. Jablonski within a matter of hours.
The Post & Email had contacted all 13 U.S. congressmen, both senators, and the Georgia governor to request a statement on the eligibility hearing scheduled for the 26th. Not one of them responded.
Big brother is here. Glenn Beck Special Program on WELCOME TO 1984 exposes what the government is doing. A government ID for the Internet, indefinite detention for citizens, expatriation, drone spying on civilians are just a few things that Glenn talks about. See the videos.
President Barack Obama laid out an array of plans in his State of the Union speech as if his hands weren’t so tied by political realities. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies – something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today’s divided Congress, much less in this election year.
And there was more recycling, in an even more forbidding climate than when the ideas were new: He pushed for an immigration overhaul that he couldn’t get past Democrats, permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago, and familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric Tuesday night and how it fits with the facts and political circumstances:
OBAMA: “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It‘s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”
THE FACTS: This is at least Obama’s third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year’s State of the Union speech. And he’s now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.
OBAMA: “Our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”
THE FACTS: That’s only half true. About half of the more than 30 million uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover childless adults living near the poverty line.
The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that’s a government program, too.
Starting in 2014 most Americans will be required to carry health coverage, either through an employer, by buying their own plan, or through a government program.
OBAMA, asking Congress to pay for construction projects: “Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”
THE FACTS: The idea of taking war “savings” to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand. For one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely financed through borrowing, so stopping the wars doesn’t create a pool of ready cash, just less debt. And the savings appear to be based at least in part on inflated war spending estimates for future years.
OBAMA: “Through the power of our diplomacy a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one.”
THE FACTS: The world is still divided over how to deal with Iran’s disputed nuclear program, and even over whether the nuclear program is a problem at all.
It is true that the U.S., Europe and other nations have agreed to apply the strictest economic sanctions yet on Iran later this year. But the global sanctions net has holes, because some of Iran‘s large oil trading partners won’t go along. China, a major purchaser of Iran’s crude, isn’t part of the new sanctions and, together with Russia, stopped the United Nations from applying similarly tough penalties.
OBAMA: “Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.”
THE FACTS: Economists do see manufacturing growth as a necessary component of any U.S. recovery. U.S. manufacturing output climbed 0.9 percent in December, the biggest gain since December 2010. Yet Obama’s apparent vision of a nation once again propelled by manufacturing – a vision shared by many Republicans – may already have slipped into the past.
Over generations, the economy has become ever more driven by services; not since 1975 has the U.S. had a surplus in merchandise trade, which covers trade in goods, including manufactured and farm goods. About 90 percent of American workers are employed in the service sector, a profound shift in the nature of the workforce over many decades.
The overall trade deficit through the first 11 months of 2011 ran at an annual rate of nearly $600 billion, up almost 12 percent from the year before.
OBAMA: “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”
THE FACTS: Obama is more sanguine about progress in Afghanistan than his own intelligence apparatus. The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using fledgling talks with the U.S. to gain credibility and stall until U.S. troops leave, while continuing to fight for more territory. The classified assessment, described to The Associated Press by officials who have seen it, says the Afghan government hasn’t been able to establish credibility with its people, and predicts the Taliban and warlords will largely control the countryside.
OBAMA: “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.”
THE FACTS: He left out some key details. The bailout of General Motors and Chrysler began under Republican President George W. Bush. Obama picked up the ball, earmarked more money, and finished the job. But Ford never asked for a federal bailout and never got one.
OBAMA: “We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there‘s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.”
THE FACTS: With this statement, Obama was renewing a call he made last year to require 80 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035, including nuclear, natural gas and so-called clean coal. He did not put that percentage in his speech but White House background papers show that it remains his goal.
But this Congress has yet to introduce a bill to make that goal a reality, and while legislation may be introduced this year, it is unlikely to become law with a Republican-controlled House that loathes mandates.
OBAMA: “Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.”
THE FACTS: It’s true that a minority of millionaires pay a lower tax rate than some lower-income people. On average, though, wealthy people pay taxes at a much higher rate than middle-income taxpayers.
Obama’s claim comes from a Congressional Research Service report that compared federal taxes paid by people making less than $100,000 with those paid by people making more than $1 million. About 10 percent of families with incomes under $100,000 paid more than 26.5 percent in federal income, payroll and corporate taxes. And about a quarter of millionaire taxpayers paid a rate lower than that.
OBAMA: “We can‘t bring back every job that’s left our shores…. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.”
FACT CHECK: Many of the jobs U.S. companies have created overseas won’t return because they were never in the United States in the first place.
As Obama said in his speech, U.S. workers have become more productive and labor costs have fallen.
But there are powerful forces pushing the other way: Many of the overseas jobs in U.S. companies weren’t transferred from the U.S. They were created in fast-growing markets in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere to serve customers in those markets. Companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index now earn more than half of their revenue from overseas.
That has fueled more job creation abroad. U.S. multinationals cut more than 800,000 jobs in the United States from 2000 to 2009, according the Commerce Department. They added 2.9 million overseas in the same period.
OBAMA: “Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn‘t know what they’re talking about … That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.”
THE FACTS: Obama left out Arab and Muslim nations, where popular opinion of the U.S. appears to have gone downhill or remained unchanged after the spring 2011 reformist uprisings in the Middle East. A Pew Research Center survey in May found that in predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Pakistan, views of the U.S. were worse than a year earlier. In Pakistan, a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid that went unmentioned in Obama’s speech, just 11 percent of respondents said they held a positive view of the United States.
The fight for freedom and against tyranny is going to be both tough and discouraging. But he [Beck] encouraged listeners to take an active roll in the process, rather than shrinking away or ignoring the situation. “It’s not something that we can just pray about and then it will just happen,” “This is going to be hard and it’s going to be up to us.”
Beck Uses Drum in Fiery Defense of Freedom & Attack on Obama‘s Quest for ’Power’
As we reported this morning, there was a portion of President Obama’s State of the Union address that really struck a chord with Glenn Beck. The section, which focused upon the president’s quest for more executive capacity, led Beck to passionately discuss freedom and responsibility on his radio show this morning.
“Let me translate: he means the executive branch,” Beck said of the president’s proposals. “He is alerting people now ‘we need more power in the executive branch and I’m going to consolidate power in my branch.’”
After urging Americans not to support the move, Beck passionately delivered portions of Thomas Paine’s “The Crisis” that were written on the head of a drum. Here’s the first portion that he read:
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
“You‘re talking about man’s freedom,” Beck said after sharing the selection. “Is there anything that should — if heaven affixes the prices of things — is there anything that should be more costly than freedom? Is there anything more valuable than your right to be free? I don’t think so.”
He went on to say that the fight for freedom and against tyranny is going to be both tough and discouraging. But he encouraged listeners to take an active roll in the process, rather than shrinking away or ignoring the situation.
“It’s not something that we can just pray about and then it will just happen,” Beck proclaimed. “This is going to be hard and it’s going to be up to us.”
He went on to read more of Paine’s address, telling listeners about how General George Washington once used the same words to inspire his troops on the banks of the Delaware. These motivational statements helped rally the colonial troops who were battling the most powerful army in the world at the time.
Here are some of the other lines Beck shared with listeners:
The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.
Watch him deliver these statements, below:
“You might get discouraged. You might look at the candidates on the stage and say ‘I don’t like any of them,’” he continued. “You might listen to the state of the Union address. You might get into spring and see Occupy Wall Street start to happen again…and you might get discouraged and say…‘I can’t do anything.’”
Despite these feelings and the associated challenges ahead, Beck told the audience, “Don’t throw the burden of the day on God. Show your faith by your works and God will bless you.”
He encouraged listeners to confront the challenges head-on. Everyone, he explained, would be impacted.
“It doesn’t matter where you live. It doesn‘t matter if you work at a gas station or you’re the governor of a state — the evil or the blessing will reach each and every one of us,” Beck said. ”Rich or poor, we will all suffer or rejoice together.”
Watch him continue this discussion, below:
A Special Report.
One of our biggest mistakes is not knowing that we are fighting a dictatorship. The main reason for our mistakes is that we have in our minds the image of the old traditional dictatorship. Right after the “fall” of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new type of dictatorship was created by communists all around Latin America and Africa.
The Traditional Dictatorship.
One of our biggest mistakes is not knowing that we are fighting a dictatorship. The main reason for our mistakes is that we have in our minds the image of the old traditional dictatorship. If we look around, we can’t find that type of dictatorship anywhere. So we keep on playing baseball, the game that all those traditional dictators used to play.
Leaving out the Islamic dictatorship, we had two types of traditional dictatorships: the right wing (including the fascists) and the communist dictatorships. These old-type or traditional dictators usually took power after a coup d’état. Some of them, like Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) in Peru or Gerardo Machado (1925-1933) in Cuba, just to mention two of them, were first elected by votes in clean elections and then turned dictators. The rest of them rose to power after a war, a revolution or a traditional coup d’état. Recently, they were either backed by the Soviet Union or by the United States of America, generally speaking. They kept power by means of violence… killing and persecuting their people.