Thursday, February 10, 2011

More than-‘A Matter of Eligibility’

Our corrupt Supreme Court blatantly protects the illegal and unconstitutional activities of the Congress and the President. The article below also shows how Obama has been able to keep his real birth place and past a secret.

By de Andréa

I never thought I would see the government of the United States of America including the U.S. Supreme Court so surreptitiously take on the shroud of corruption.

I hesitated to even publish this article because of its length, (7 pages, I try to keep my articles under 4 pages) but if you have any interest in what is at the very core of the problems in America then you will want to read this.

I have written many times about, not only the horrendous and blatant disregard for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people, and the repugnancy of the Obama administration regarding constitutional law, but I have evidence here that even the Supreme Court supports or at the very least enables this behavior.

As you read this rather lengthy article on the technical aspects of corruption in the Obama administration as well as the illegal protection by the Supreme Court, you will find among others, one very fundamentally important rule of law being violated by members of the high court. And that is the blatant conflict of interest of the two Obama appointees Justices Sotomayor and Kagan and their refusal to recuse themselves of the vote to hear a case because they may lose their lifetime appointments to the bench if the Obama eligibility case is heard. Because they both have a vested interest in the case they must, according to law of jurist prudence, recuse themselves of anything that has to do with this case, including and especially on a vote of whether or not to hear this case.

After reading this article, you will understand why Obama has not been brought up on charges of fraud against the Congress, the many states, and the American people, as well as outright violations of the constitution and just plain contempt for the rule of law.

One could obviously get away with murder if one was protected by the corruption of the Supreme Court…

You can download a free and complete special report on the eligibility of Obama to be president of the United States Here: The Obama Eligibility Primer. If you ignorantly think that this is a lot of hooey or some conservative conspiracy then this will shake you to your socks.

Veteran attorney John D. Hemenway who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since before he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to avoid the eligibility dispute the U.S. Supreme Court will effectively "destroy the constitutional rule of law which is the basis of our legal system." This destruction of the constitution, in case you haven’t noticed, is the fundamental and primary agenda of the Obama administration.

Hemenway asks whether the justices are still committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues. This warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.

“We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president of these United States and has done so; it appears, with awareness by the government and the Supreme Court that he is not eligible under the constitutional legal requirement for a person to be president. Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said. “Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that President Obama shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect? The real question here, is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution,” Hemenway wrote. “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.”

Watch and listen to Justice Clarence Thomas say in a video That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama eligibility issue. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary. " You don't have to be born in the United States to serve on the Supreme Court," said Thomas, referring to the Constitutional law which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether ‘I’ can serve as president, but you answer this one?” (Serrano was born in Puerto Rico)

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of Obama’s presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber.

Well no kidding! Now I want you to know I have the greatest respect for Clarence Thomas as I do for Antonin Scalia but this sort of response from a Supreme Court Justice frames the deterioration of respect for constitutional law that has perverted the highest court in the land. This court is legally charged with ‘nothing else’, but to ride herd on our constitution. In my opinion it has failed here, and in a plethora of other cases.

Hemenway's arguments come in the petition for a rehearing that follows the decision last month by the courts decision not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for a rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

The facts and details of the motion:
That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.
Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted “Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void”.

Hemenway submitted such a motion. Moreover, the petition for rehearing argues, since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court. "Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.’ Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote. "Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"

The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.’ That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country,” the filing said.

A spokeswoman for the court said the “motion for recusal” was received Dec. 30, 2010 but the justices wouldn't treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a "request.” Note that the Court spokesperson referred to the stated “motion for recusal” as just a simple “request” even though it was legally filed as a “motion”.

Requests are not treated as motions; they are forwarded by the clerk's office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices. “If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case,” the spokeswoman said. Which is irrelevant, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated "Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan," and a second time, "Petitioners' Motion to Recuse," and the document was filed and processed as such.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it would create a crisis. “If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],”stated the pleading. "Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure. Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al (one of Obama’s many other aliases) as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor illegally participated in the “conference”, (the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take). On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, but the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WorldNetDaily reported an earlier eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue. Scalia stated “that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side usually included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, that even three votes would be sufficient to move the case forward.

Elgin said that his case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that “the certification of live birth posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese born nationalist leader, was granted exactly the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House claims that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Other constitutional violations
It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
"He immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further, is the recent judge's ruling in Florida, that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional. "The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington. In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" --- the act of “twittering” -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality." "It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, [his birth certificate aside] since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, [Already established] was not 'eligible to run for the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition, that is, if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition,"
the motion explained.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact, that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders. "If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give that order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

Note: It is interesting that none of the cases of military enlisted men or officer’s refusal to obey orders on the bases of Obama’s ineligibility to be Commander in Chief has resulted in a Court Martial as prescribed by the Code of Military Justice, because they would require full eligibility disclosure. Something Obama avoids like the plague.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate. “It's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that he does not want the public to know.”

As of today, Obama has spent 1.6 million dollars in legal fees to keep this and other issues of his past a secret. Why would anyone spend that much money and make such an effort to conceal ones past if there was nothing to hide. Obama has not only concealed his birth documentation but he has attempted to conceal every document ever written about him including all of his school and college records.

I hope you, as I do, after reading this article at least “smell a rat”. While the article may not prove anything one way or the other, I believe it does, at the very least, in a country and “government of law,” raise enough questions to result in an official investigation not only into Obama’s eligibility, but into the illegal actions of the Supreme Court.

I also believe that the information in this article and others, I have written about exposing corruption in Washington, at least partially illustrates the extent of corruption that can incrementally occur when one indiscretion is built, one top of another, over time until the rule of law is considered a moot point.

If this issue ever gets to the courts and Obama is found not to be eligible to be president of these United States, then it would be as if he had never taken office, in that, anything that Obama was involved in would be reversed as if it never happened. If you think a moment about that, you will shortly recognize just how big a can of worms that would be. All of his appointments, all laws signed, all treaties, and all departments created, all regulations, decisions made etcetera, etcetera would be as if they had never taken place. One brick that he has placed upon another would all be torn down.

While on one hand one might think that would be a good thing, it would sure turn the country upside-down. It might even tear it apart. No one really knows all the ramifications that this would present.

If you haven’t already done so, be sure to download the free primer on Obama’s eligibility. The primer is 32 pages long, it was put together by WorldNetDaily news agency; and it is very nicely done in full color with graphic illustrations and photos. You can read it on line and/or you can print it and loan it to your computerless friends to read.
Click on this The Obama Eligibility Primer .

I hope this at least gives you something to ponder…

de Andréa

No comments: