Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Supreme Court clerks fail to pass on Obama Conference information to 5 Justices?
Coach Is Right ^ | 2/22/2013 | George Spelvin

Posted on 02/24/2013 6:02:20 AM PST by IbJensen

A stunning press release by Obama eligibility challenger, Attorney Orly Taitz is revealing “…clerks of the Supreme Court NEVER forwarded to five out of the nine justices one single page of pleadings nor the Supplemental Brief” so they could review details prior to last Friday’s (Feb. 15, 2013) conference! Her case, Noonan v. Bowen, (CA Secretary of State) seeks relief in the form of a stay of election results of the Presidential election of Barack Hussein Obama because of his lack of citizenship, problematic Birth Certificate posted on the internet, plus non verifiable Social Security and Selective Service records and other data. (1)

What is especially troubling is the fact that, according to Taitz, she went in person to file the renewed application for Stays with Supreme Court Clerk Redmond Barnes and talked to Clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin as she submitted a supplemental brief concerning a national security matter. She was told to submit this material to the guard “for mandatory anthrax screening.” Taitz continues: “THE CLERKS NEVER DOCKETED” her applications! By going to her website and scrolling down, you can view the photographs of the data including the boxes and stamps contained therein.

Taitz then addressed a demand for investigation to U.S. House of Representative Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. (2) Even as these legal developments were taking place, Taitz observed that information obfuscating what was really going on was putting out the notion that her pleading was denied.

The written order does NOT state whether the application was granted or denied, she says! (3)

Retired Air Force Colonel Richard Brewer states: “I have watched with increasing alarm as those in our government particularly our judiciary at various levels have chosen to ignore the evidence and instead attack the messenger or resort to technicalities to avoid doing their job. . .I am more concerned now about the future of our country than I have ever been!” He cites the famous General Douglas MacArthur quote: “A million ghosts will rise up shouting DUTY HONOR COUNTRY.” Brewer is calling on everyone concerned to “look at every shred of evidence” in the challenge to Obama’s legitimacy to hold the office of the Presidency.

A vitally important part of the controversy involves Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requiring the U.S. President to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Though not specifically defined in the Constitution, there can be no question that the Founders considered a Natural Born Citizen to be an individual born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents. In Obama’s own book, he states his father was born in Kenya.

Taitz urges all concerned American citizens to contact the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, especially Chair Bob Goodlatte. The toll free number is 1-877-762-8762. Clearly, this issue is fast approaching critical mass. Its outcome depends in large part on the reactions of concerned United States citizens!

SOURCE: (1) (2) www.orlytaitzesq.com (3) http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021913zor_19m1.pdf


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birftards; birther; birthers; evilobamaregime; kenyanbornmuzzie; naturalborncitizen; obamanation; orlytaitz; scotus; scotusclerks; taitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
The piles of cases against this presidency are now so immense as to now resemble a refuse land fill site. Action must go forward to end this 1,000 ring circus.

These law clerks failed to follow procedure as they are Obama moles.

They should be be fired immediately and the entry of their malfeasance entered on their record. They are all aspiring lawyers who think that one day they'll be trying cases in a court of law and their ethics now seem to relegate them to the dumpster. There is no way one can doubt that deliberate Obama suppression has been going on. How many other cases have been treated the same way or is this an isolated case due to a personal agenda?

1 posted on 02/24/2013 6:02:28 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Maybe the clerks were trying to reduce government spending by not making nine copies of the pleadings (one for each justice). However, they could at least have sent a page or two of each brief to each justice (say, pages 1 -2 to the Chief Justice, pages 3-4 to Justice Thomas, etc.) Then they wouldn’t have had to make expensive copies.


2 posted on 02/24/2013 6:10:35 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I do not believe that there is any doubt that a conspiracy exists in which the Congress and the Supreme Court are involved in hiding Obama’s past.

Somehow they have decided that destroying the country is worth not having to have race riots when Obama is proven ineligible for his position.


3 posted on 02/24/2013 6:20:08 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Reminding me of a minor issue back during the days when people were trying to find a record in the Hawaii birth archives ~ intact ~ that had the look and feel of the real thing.

That's when they, and most of us, realized that the artifact created through the wonder of digital pictures of former microfiche records just wasn't cutting it.

Just a few months before the retrofitted and gussied up archives facility was reopened they opened up a new landfill where they dumped the old paper stuff!

I proposed folks might like to do some dump diving to find the originals ~ anyone do that yet?

4 posted on 02/24/2013 6:21:50 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

The cowardly Republicrats are the greatest disappointment. I truly believe that all in Washington know in their hearts and minds that this occupant of the now disgraced White Hut is a 100% bona fide phony created by the enemies within and without the United States to destroy this nation.

This scandalous tragedy will result in the end of America as we knew it and our founding fathers hoped for.

A pox and eternal hell for those weasels.


5 posted on 02/24/2013 6:25:11 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This isn’t just happening in the USSC it’s happening in courts all over the country.

I had a case before the Texas Supreme Court and I have no doubt that my attorney’s filings, briefs, and response never reached the judges.

Judges are turning more and more of the duties over to clerks and clerks are deciding the cases not the judges.


6 posted on 02/24/2013 6:26:56 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I am not sure Orly's point here as this is normal procedure. Information is not passed on to all Justices. Normal practice is they participate in a cert pool:

From the SCOTUS procedure page:
...While it is the prerogative of every Justice to read each petition for certiorari himself/herself, many participate in what is informally known as the "cert pool." As petitions for certiorari come in on a weekly basis, they are divided among the participating Justices. The participating Justices divide their petitions among their law clerks. The law clerks, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, write a brief memorandum about the case, and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not. The Justice provides these memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a Justices' Conference.

7 posted on 02/24/2013 6:29:36 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
. . . seeks relief in the form of a stay of election results of the Presidential election of Barack Hussein Obama because of his lack of citizenship, problematic Birth Certificate posted on the internet, plus non verifiable Social Security and Selective Service records and other data . . .

I am not in any way convinced that the druggie in our White House is a natural born citizen, but that is irrelevant at this point. We will lose that battle if we fight it. We are now in the situation of the brave soldiers defending Bataan in 1942. We will lose. We can surrender and suffer a terrible disaster, or we can fight and suffer an even more terrible disaster with no hope of victory. There are no good choices, but the least bad choice is to accept the inevitable - the usurper will continue to occupy our White House until January 20, 2016; America will suffer grave and possibly unrecoverable damage because of that communist; and the best we can hope for is to mitigate the damage now and repeal every single part of Obama's destructive legacy as soon as possible. Let's fight the battles we can win.

8 posted on 02/24/2013 6:29:48 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
Dangerous embeds !!

THESE are the ones that we need to figure out how to remove from power.

We joke about stories of T's not dotted and I's not crossed ... but just ask people that have lost farms or money or whatever because "a paper" or a "document" wasn't done correctly, in time, and I'm sorry ... just doin' m'job ... it's the law, y'know.

9 posted on 02/24/2013 6:31:34 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Birthers really ought to find someone a little more competent than Orly Taitz to be the flag-bearer for their crusade. If this woman isn’t employed by the Obama administration, she should be. She’s accomplished nothing more than turning the entire eligibility issue into something resembling a Coen Brother’s movie. One of their funny ones.


10 posted on 02/24/2013 6:35:12 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Let's fight the battles we can win.

The House of Representatives has the "sole" power of impeachment. Between elections, impeachment (and the 25th Amendment) is the only legal path to the removal of a White House occupant. The Supreme Court has no power to remove presidents.

11 posted on 02/24/2013 6:39:47 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Thank you for your concern.


12 posted on 02/24/2013 6:42:43 AM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Instead of whining about Michelle Obama’s behind....her dance moves....even her haistyles....GOP Media and Talk Radio need to spend all their time on Barack Obama’s Eligibility

Fact is that everyone who is not raising the Obama Eligibility issue is an Obama Supporter. I am so tired of the BS “waaahhh....Michelle danced w Jimmy Fallon” and the BS excuses for not making Obama Eligibility a top issue. Stop acting like Dem Underground


13 posted on 02/24/2013 6:44:48 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The system of law in America-local, state and national-is a joke.
It is in such a state that I do as those with power do. I pick and choose what laws I wish to follow as the circumstances dictate.
They have chosen to set the standard and I choose to follow their lead.


14 posted on 02/24/2013 6:46:03 AM PST by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
It's not the race riots. 0m0slem has the black citizens on hair trigger for that already, and is going to use it at some point. That's a fact! Got Pb?

It's the ruling class system. R or D, it's a feudal system of Lords, Knights, and Serfs.

They have been informed if they want to retain their titles/status, do not question the king or his qualifications.

15 posted on 02/24/2013 6:47:46 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

You surrender over a Constitutional issue....what, pray tell, will you surrender to next?

I am sick and tired of the Obama Supporter nonsense


16 posted on 02/24/2013 6:49:16 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

No one is asking for a court to remove him. All it would take to get congress moving is a court ruling that says the document posted is a forgery.


17 posted on 02/24/2013 6:49:59 AM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
>"the usurper will continue to occupy our White House until January 20, 2016;"

He doesn't follow Constitutional law. What makes you think he will follow that one?

I say FIGHT!!!! Make that Indonesian pig squeel!!

18 posted on 02/24/2013 6:51:23 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: knarf

People don’t think it’s a big deal, until it happens to them.

The TSU has made tax fraud by the taxing authorities legal.

It is your responsibility to somehow know about the taxing authority’s intent to commit fraud and stop the fraud before you loose your property.


19 posted on 02/24/2013 6:55:16 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP
No one is asking for a court to remove him. All it would take to get congress moving is a court ruling that says the document posted is a forgery.

The article says that Orly's pleadings ask for much more than a declaration that a document is a forgery:

"Her case, Noonan v. Bowen, (CA Secretary of State) seeks relief in the form of a stay of election results of the Presidential election of Barack Hussein Obama because of his lack of citizenship, problematic Birth Certificate posted on the internet, plus non verifiable Social Security and Selective Service records and other data."

The Supreme Court is the wrong place to be trying to remove a president. The Constitution is very clear about the removal powers of the three branches. The Supreme Court has no more power than the post office in that regard.

Why should we try to depart from the Constitution on this issue? Impeachment is the remedy.

20 posted on 02/24/2013 6:59:35 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

>> Let’s fight the battles we can win.
>
> The House of Representatives has the “sole” power of impeachment. Between elections, impeachment (and the 25th Amendment) is the only legal path to the removal of a White House occupant. The Supreme Court has no power to remove presidents.

Question: How can the Supreme court remove a President if the Constitution itself prevents the person in question from BEING the President?


21 posted on 02/24/2013 7:00:04 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
GOP Media and Talk Radio need to spend all their time on Barack Obama’s Eligibility

That no reputable conservative talk show host, attorney, judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or legal foundation will touch this stuff should tell you something about its merits. Of course, to birthers this is nothing more than evidence that they're all participants in this great conspiracy.

22 posted on 02/24/2013 7:13:12 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The fix is in. Obama is President for at least four more years - if not for life. Get used to it.

Who will deliver us from this madness?

23 posted on 02/24/2013 7:19:17 AM PST by Gritty (The 2nd Amendment protects the right to shoot tyrants effectively, not deer-Judge A. Napolitano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

If anyone is interested here are two more threads on this topic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2990199/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2990308/posts

Orly’s press release of a Petition to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/02/scouts-employees-caught-withholding-legal-documents-from-supreme-court-justices/


24 posted on 02/24/2013 7:29:47 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

“Fact is that everyone who is not raising the Obama Eligibility issue is an Obama Supporter.”

Fact is, there is no evidence that Obama is not constitutionally qualified. Legally, there is no doubt that the “2 citizen parent” argument is a myth - a misreading of a translation of Vattel made 10 years AFTER the Constitution, and contrary to the accepted meaning of natural born citizen used at the time the Constitution was written and ratified.

So as long as Hawaii maintains Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no legal argument.

Meanwhile, the Taitz idiot files petitions to the Supreme Court comparing them to Nazis and saying the law clerks should be sentenced to death. Someday, birthers need to wake up and realize Taitz doesn’t WANT to win. She just wants to ride the gravy train of donations so she won’t have to clean teeth for a living...

Wiki has a good account of this nut:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz


25 posted on 02/24/2013 7:34:21 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
In other words, Orly Taitz is baffled that the SCOTUS is treating her petition for certiorari in accordance with its standard procedures.

BTW: My son is a staff attorney for the Eleventh Circuit. He handles mandamus petitions in the same manner as petitions for cert are handled for the SCOTUS. He reads the petition, writes a brief memo, drafts an appropriate order, and presents it to one judge.

26 posted on 02/24/2013 7:34:43 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I've fixed my problem with procrastination; just wait and see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Question: How can the Supreme court remove a President if the Constitution itself prevents the person in question from BEING the President?

The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Supreme Court to decide who can be the president.

From an intellectual standpoint, it is not hard to get yourself so tangled up in being questions that you become paralyzed. However, if you insist on turning this whole thing into a philosophical question:

Right now, Barack Obama either is or is not the president of the United States.

If Barack Obama is the president, the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives the "sole" power of impeachment and to the Senate the power to remove following impeachment. The Constitution does not provide the Supreme Court with that power.

If Barack Obama is not the president, then there isn't any need for anyone to do anything. You can just ignore what everyone tells you about the so-called "President Obama." You're not required to believe any of it.

27 posted on 02/24/2013 7:38:10 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

In other words, Orly Taitz is baffled....

************

Happens fairly regularly with Orly it seems.


28 posted on 02/24/2013 7:53:59 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
You can just ignore what everyone tells you about the so-called "President Obama." You're not required to believe any of it.

And yet, this is not borne out in reality: what happens if you are a soldier who refuses to abide by orders due to the superiors having no authority? {The chain of command is dependent upon the fundamental qualities of authority: the one who is sent is under the authority of the one sending; this goes to the Commander-In-Chief, which the Constitution assigns as the President.}

29 posted on 02/24/2013 8:12:54 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I believe that many in Washington knew or strongly suspected Obama may not have been eligible to be POTUS or at least had a very questionable background. They were dissuaded from doing anything because it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would win the nomination in 2008 and that Obama would not hold up to any serious scrutiny. When it appeared Obama would seize the nomination, the media had already lined up and were in lockstep to support Obama and the race card was being constantly played. The Clintons even admitted the race card was played against them, though I maintain Hillary and her people had damning information about Obama's past particularly his now outed drug use.

The GOP leadership was scared to death of being labeled racist and thought that moderate McCain would swing the undecided vote. Few dared to raise questions about Obama's past except on talk radio. Obama's second term was a result of nominating another moderate, a totally lackluster campaign and Obama's almost total control of the media. The Republicans missed an opportunity to press home after the real out of touch Obama was revealed in the first debate. Romney was again coached to pander to the moderates and not appear mean spirited rather than keep on the attack when Obama was down. The threat of the race card was prominent.

Obama will eventually be found out...likely decades from now by some obscure historian or let us hope not when he attempts to set up a Marxist dictatorship.

30 posted on 02/24/2013 8:14:18 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
In other words, Orly Taitz is baffled that the SCOTUS is treating her petition for certiorari in accordance with its standard procedures.

Pretty much but no surprise at all. This is a lady that has had cases thrown out because she has forgotten to sign papers or file them properly. On most of her briefs, especially the early ones, the spelling and grammar were atrocious. She also has a tendency to jump on any hoax, even after they were revealed to be obvious hoaxes (like the Lucas Smith doc which she still presents or the 'red blanket' BC she presented before the court after the hoaxer revealed how he made it to mock birthers.)

31 posted on 02/24/2013 8:17:39 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
There are people in the United States who cannot tell you who is president of the United States or who is vice president or who is their congressman. They live their lives without caring about such things. It's not required.

However, of those people who do care to know who is president of the United States, probably 99.99% of them believe that Barack Obama is the president of the United States. By showing up for Obama's inauguration and by showing up for Obama's state of the union speech, most members of the Supreme Court are signaling to you that they believe that Obama is the president of the United States. The Chief Justice administered Obama's oath of office.

Like that vast majority of Americans, the Supreme Court believes that Barack Obama is the president of the United States. They may not be absolutely certain that Obama or any of our past presidents met all of the qualifications to be president or should have been president, but they do believe that all of these people were in fact presidents. They don't see anything in the Constitution that empowers them to either raise the question or attempt to answer the question as to whether any of these folks should have been president or met all of the qualifications. All of our presidents became president as the result of a political process, not a judicial process. The people and their electors decide upon the candidates' qualifications.

You don't need to accept that you believe that Obama is the president for you to accept that the Supreme Court believes that Obama is the president. The Supreme Court does believe that somehow Obama became and now is the president of the United States. That's all they need to believe and know that only the Congress can remove him from office.

And that's what the courts have been trying to tell Orly and her fans.

32 posted on 02/24/2013 8:58:32 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Don’t birthers ever bother to look up the facts before they go off half-cocked ranting about something that was simple procedure?

No, they don’t.

Here’s a hint: cert pool


33 posted on 02/24/2013 9:00:11 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Like that vast majority of Americans, the Supreme Court believes that Barack Obama is the president of the United States. They may not be absolutely certain that Obama or any of our past presidents met all of the qualifications to be president or should have been president, but they do believe that all of these people were in fact presidents.

You miss the point: If they have any doubt then they have no business affirming him!
They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the popular vote or the electoral college or the politically expedient.

The people and their electors decide upon the candidates' qualifications.

Factually incorrect: the Constitution plainly sets the qualifications for President. -- Everyone in America could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger and it would not change the fact that he is not qualified to be president because he is foreign-born.

34 posted on 02/24/2013 9:42:10 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You miss the point: If they have any doubt then they have no business affirming him!

Anyone can have some doubt about whether any of our presidents were constitutionally qualified. You and I do not know for certain where any of them were born or the identity of any of their parents.

What we do know:

(1) Whether qualified or not, all of our past presidents were in fact presidents of the United States, just as Obama is in fact president of the United States; and

(2) Aside from the 25th Amendment, the Constitution provides for only one legal way to remove a president from office - impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

The courts cannot remove a sitting president for any reason. It's not their job.

Despite the clarity of those provisions, Orly and her fans continue to berate the court for refusing to remove from office a sitting president. She has become a judicial stalker, persistently demanding that courts ignore the Constitution and confer upon themselves powers that they do not have.

By the way, in Iran, all candidates for president must be approved by a Council of Guardians. Our system is not like that. We let the people decide.

35 posted on 02/24/2013 11:01:39 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Whatever the circumstances of Obama’s Article II, Section 1 eligibility, he is the President and he can only be removed from office via impeachment or resignation. That is one reason why the Supreme Court has denied every one of 24 appeals and applications for stays or injunctions in Obama eligibility actions.
The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” At the very least, Obama’s possession of the office makes him a legally valid “de facto officer.” Every time Congress sends him a bill to sign into law or confirms his nominees, they are reinforcing his de facto officer status.

“De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. ‘An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:

First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;

Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;

Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;

Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such.’”


36 posted on 02/24/2013 11:05:51 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Oops, I neglected to respond to your second point:

Everyone in America could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger and it would not change the fact that he is not qualified to be president because he is foreign-born.

First, the American people are not going to unanimously vote for Arnold to be president. However, if he were to run for office and argue that he was actually born in the U.S. and if, after hearing the pro and con arguments about his true place of birth and qualifications, the American people decided in favor his being qualified and if he then had a majority of electors vote for him, he could become president. And, if he thus became president, his removal would require impeachment.

Count the "ifs" in that last paragraph. Try to stay in the real world. The people and their electors are allowed to consider and decide questions of qualification even if you think they sometimes make mistakes. Presumably, they will make some mistakes, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court should disregard the Constitution and try to remove a sitting president. That is clearly the sole power of the Congress.

37 posted on 02/24/2013 11:20:20 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
The Supreme Court has no power to remove presidents.

You are correct that the Supreme Court cannot remove a president.

But they can define "natural born citizen" once and for all.

The fear is that if the do define "natural born citizen" as a person born in the country to two citizen parents, then where does that leave Obama? It puts the onus on Congress to act or be in conflict with the Court.

Congress does not want to act on this, and the Court does not want to put Congress in that position.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that simply being born here is enough to be president, then it opens up the presidency to any anchor baby whose mother crosses the border within days of delivery, which (I believe) most constitutional scholars would agree was never the intent of the Framers. The Framers were concerned about generational security of their newly found country (see the Preamble of the Constitution), and influenced by the history of European monarchical intermarriage as diplomacy. Kings and queens were often the natives of other countries who married to settle wars.

This is what Thomas Paine wrote about in 1791 in The Rights Of Man, when he compared the United States presidency to European monarchies.


If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.


-PJ

38 posted on 02/24/2013 11:48:40 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
You are correct that the Supreme Court cannot remove a president.

But they can define "natural born citizen" once and for all.

The fear is that if the do define "natural born citizen" as a person born in the country to two citizen parents, then where does that leave Obama

If the Supreme Court cannot remove Obama from office, then what would be the purpose of defining "natural born citizen" at this time? Since the first Chief Justice (John Jay), the Court has made it clear that the Court's functions do not include providing "advisory opinions" just to help clarify Constitutional provisions.

Like all Americans, Thomas Paine was entitled to his own opinions.

Here was Paine's opinion of George Washington:

"Mr. Washington owed it to me on every score of private acquaintance, I will not now say, friendship; for it has some time been known by those who know him, that he has no friendships; that he is incapable of forming any; he can serve or desert a man, or a cause, with constitutional indifference; and it is this cold hermaphrodite faculty that imposed itself upon the world, and was credited for a while by enemies as by friends, for prudence, moderation and impartiality."

Here was Paine's opinion of our second president, John Adams:

"John Adams is one of those men who never contemplated the origin of government, or comprehended any thing of first principles. If he had, he might have seen, that the right to set up and establish hereditary government, never did, and never can, exist in any generation at any time whatever; that it is of the nature of treason; because it is an attempt to take away the rights of all the mirrors living at that time, and of all succeeding generations. It is of a degree beyond common treason. It is a sin against nature. The equal right of every generation is a right fixed in the nature of things. It belongs to the son when of age, as it belonged to the father before him. John Adams would himself deny the right that any former deceased generation could have to decree authoritatively a succession of governors over him, or over his children; and yet he assumes the pretended right, treasonable as it is, of acting it himself. His ignorance is his best excuse."

And, here was Paine's opinion of our first Chief Justice, John Jay:

"John Jay has said, (and this John was always the sycophant of every thing in power, from Mr. Girard in America, to Grenville in England,)—John Jay has said, that the Senate should have been appointed for life. He would then have been sure of never wanting a lucrative appointment for himself, and have had no fears about impeachment. These are the disguised traitors that call themselves Federalists."

So, Washington was a hermaphrodite incapable of forming friendships, Adams was ignorant and Jay was a disguised traitor. And, all of these opinions were expressed in just a single Tom Paine letter.

It seems to me entirely possible that the Supreme Court might not automatically defer to Thomas Paine when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

39 posted on 02/24/2013 12:17:55 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Interesting. That letter is dated 1796, five years after he wrote The Rights Of Man.

I offer Paine's words as a contemporary of the framing of the Constitution. He wrote his comparison of the Presidency at a time when it was fresh in people's minds. I have not seen other writings (other than Jay's letter to Washington) on the intent of the natural-born clause.

I agree that Paine became a bitter man later in life. He was ostracized from society, and died alone with little acknowledgement.

I read a letter of Paine's from 1807 that is on display at the Thomas Paine House in New Rochelle, NY. In this letter, Paine pleads with Vice-President George Clinton to testify on his behalf to a local election board that refused to allow Paine to vote, claiming that he was not a citizen.

Paine wrote: "As it is a new generation that has risen up since the declaration of independence, they know nothing of what political state of the country was at the time the pamphlet Common Sense appeared; and besides this there are but few of the old standards left, and none that I know of in this city."

Clearly, he was a forgotten man in his old age, largely due to his own later behaviors. Still, that doesn't take away the value of his earlier contributions.

-PJ

40 posted on 02/24/2013 12:40:20 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

So then, let's play a game: Imagine I go out to the PX grab me some rank and insert myself into the command of a sizable group of soldiers. Now suppose that I issue orders to my men to forcibly shut down the invasion in AZ, lethal force and all, under the Constitutional authorization of Art 4, Sec 4.

Would following my orders condemn my men? Myself? (Take into consideration the stances of the political caste & their willingness to 'overlook' rules/regulations/laws.) Yes or no? Explain your answer.

41 posted on 02/24/2013 12:44:13 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Tom Paine was a real character, a genuine radical. I don’t think anyone ever accused him of being too conservative for his time.


42 posted on 02/24/2013 1:03:53 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No.
“Grabbing yourself some rank” is not acting under the Color of Law which is a legal requirement for the application of the De Facto Officer Doctrine. There is well defined process in law for establishing the legitimate military hierarchy of command.
Color of Law:
The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.”

To have an analogous situation for the “game,” you would have to have announced that you intended to “grab some rank” a year and half before you showed up at the PX. Then you would have to compete against seven other members of your unit for the right to be in command. Then you would have to compete against a “rank grabber” from another unit; then win the approval of enough members of your branch of the service who cared to participate in the selection process, and then win at least 50% of the votes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and withstand 202 courts martial hearings challenging your right to the position over a five year period without a single ruling going against you. Finally, you would need to be sworn in to your position by the Judge Advocate General for your branch of the military.
If you accomplished all that, then I would say “yes,” De Facto Offcer applies to your command and use of lethal force at the border.


43 posted on 02/24/2013 2:14:57 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
You missed perhaps the more salient portion: would the men under my command be protected or not? -- For there is no doubt they are government agents, nor is there any doubt that the Constitution (Art 4, Sec 4) requires the state [federal government] to provide for the protection against invasion which is what they would be doing.

Therefore the question is: would their actions be lawful or unlawful? (Legal or illegal? Legitimate or illegitimate?) -- Moreover would the federal government's judgements be in line with that?

44 posted on 02/24/2013 2:31:08 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Their actions would be legal, lawful and legitimate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they had no knowledge that your command was unlawful.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

So the men under your command should obey your orders if they have no knowledge of the fact that you “grabbed some rank” illegally. The accusation that you “grabbed some rank” is not good enough, there would need to have been an official finding to that effect.


45 posted on 02/24/2013 3:41:48 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Their actions would be legal, lawful and legitimate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they had no knowledge that your command was unlawful.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

So, let me get this straight: "just following orders" would be a valid defense in this case where the orders are, you say, unlawful.
That's reminiscent of the "It's ok when we deem it ok" style of governance which is characteristic of tyranny.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).

Question: How can an order which is to follow the Constitution (Art 4, Sec 4, in this case) ever be unlawful?

So the men under your command should obey your orders if they have no knowledge of the fact that you “grabbed some rank” illegally.

It's not illegal to grab some rank. The USSC has even struck down law prohibiting one presenting oneself as having some military experience that one did not actually have. (See here) As ABC summarized it: "In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court justices said today that as written, the act is too broad and ignores whether the liar is trying to materially gain anything through his or her false statement, which would be more akin to fraud."

The accusation that you “grabbed some rank” is not good enough, there would need to have been an official finding to that effect.

So which is it: are thees soldiers who are compelled upon penalty of death to obey allowed to question my legitimacy or not?

46 posted on 02/24/2013 3:57:44 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

It is best to follow the order of a superior unless you know that the order is patently illegal on its face.
The instances in the military when it is impossible to get confirmation of an order are relatively few and far between, particularly an order involving the possible use of deadly force.


47 posted on 02/24/2013 4:26:20 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 - Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official

Elements.
(1) That the accused impersonated a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent of superior authority of one of the armed forces of the United States, or an official of a certain government, in a certain manner;

(2) That the impersonation was wrongful and willful; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Note 1: If intent to defraud is in issue, add the following additional element after (2), above: That the accused did so with the intent to defraud a certain person or organization in a certain manner;.

Note 2: If the accused is charged with impersonating an official of a certain government without an intent to defraud, use the following additional element after (2) above: That the accused committed one or more acts which exercised or asserted the authority of the office the accused claimed to have;.

Explanation.
(1) Nature of offense. Impersonation does not depend upon the accused deriving a benefit from the deception or upon some third party being misled, although this is an aggravating factor.

(2) Willfulness. “Willful” means with the knowledge that one is falsely holding one’s self out as such.

(3) Intent to defraud. See paragraph 49c(14).

Lesser included offenses. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official.

(1) With intent to defraud. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

(2) All other cases. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.


48 posted on 02/24/2013 4:42:43 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 - Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official

Which wouldn't apply to me (UCMJ Art 2).

49 posted on 02/24/2013 5:03:18 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Even with a House impeachment, the trial is in the Senate. Do you think the Dem senators will bother looking at the evidence if we impeach the druggie? Considering their reaction to irrefutable evidence against the philandering perjurer, I don’t see any point in dividing our efforts in that direction.


50 posted on 02/24/2013 6:05:38 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson