Monday, July 26, 2010

Judges Afraid to hear Critical Case

No judge --- wants to be the one left ‘standing’ with no chair to sit on when the music stops playing.

By de Andréa

So what is ‘this’ “Critical Case”? Well… that’s the dilemma --- not only does a judge not want to be left standing alone, but this is what the issue has become --- the issue of “STANDING”.

The Obama eligibility case has become a “standing” or more definitively, a stalling case in order to evade the overwhelming evidence in Obama’s fraud and violation of constitutional eligibility --- case.

So what is legal “Standing” anyway? Well one must have legal standing in order to bring a civil case against someone. In other words one must be able to prove that one has lost something or been effected in a serious way by the actions of the accused.

The issue of standing should have been more than clear to the judges: "How can a judge deny he is seriously affecting you and me? He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing our enemy’s King and doing all these anti American things. His statements, “we are not a Christian nation; but we're one of the worlds largest Muslim nations”. It's all there. Obama is seriously affecting everyone. As far as loosing something, isn’t loosing my freedom a big enough loss?

Legal standing aside, this should be a criminal case brought by the U.S. Attorney General, fat chance of that happening any time soon.

But now this whole evasive technique for what ever reason, is beginning to backfire on the courts. In several of the suites filed against Obama, the lawyers themselves were fined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit without legal standing. If these rulings against the lawyers become a court case then the prosecuting attorneys can demand right of discovery. In other words the defendant Barack Hussein Obama would have to prove that there is no “Standing” by disclosing and producing the necessary documents.

It will eventually be essential to obtain a decision from the highest court in the land because of the multitude of cases that have been brought over the eligibility issue. Virtually none of the courts has addressed the question of eligibility itself. All have been decided on a legal tap dance routine called lack of legal "standing" and or other side issues, like a care weaving in and out of traffic, pretending it’s not there. Only the Supreme Court can decide this issue in the context of the constitutions Article 2 standing.

Obama can legally claim no special privacy rights to his birth documentation since the Pandora’s Box has been opened; his campaign already has posted publicly online an image of a "Certification of Live Birth," a document that was available to undocumented children or children not born in Hawaii at the time. Documents such as the long form birth certificate supporting this certificate of live birth should be made public. But then this Issue is not even being discussed because the Issue has been over shadowed by the fabricated side stepping Issue of “Standing”.
I think the courts are really afraid of this. –- 'Should the court be inclined to find that these attorneys are liable under Rule 38 for defendants' damages and costs, the court will be forced to recognize and enforce the right of discovery and whether or not the defendant actually has a copy of a 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents.

This is also the case for several high ranking military officers refusing direct orders coming down the chain of command from the Commander and Chief, President Obama. These Officers have respectfully refused such orders on the bases that Obama hasn’t proved that he is eligible to be the Commander and Chief of the military. Court Martials are pending. If a military trial or any other kind of trial results, the defense can and will demand full discovery disclosure, a real scary dilemma for Obama if he doesn’t have the necessary documented proof of eligibility.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Well ­­--- the bottom line is still to be ‘discovered or disclosed’ so to speak. If push comes to shove, it looks as if Obama might find himself between the proverbial rock and a ‘harder’ place. I just don’t know how long Obama’s lawyers can keep this stall tactic from becoming a process that just may bury him. Obama has so far spent close to two million to cover up this crime against America, and stall this inevitable disclosure. Why would he do that if he in fact were not a British citizen, or worse yet, a citizen of the Muslim State of Indonesia?
Obama may not only be the first “Black President” of the United States, but he might also be the first ‘Foreign President’ of the United States. Possibly even an illegal alien. Maybe that’s why he wants amnesty for illegals.
Do you think maybe this is why the Framers wrote this into the constitution???

Yeah, ya think?

de Andréa

No comments: