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

Skip to comments.

Outrageous: Judge Decides Law Doesn’t Apply To Obama
Western Journalism ^ | 7/7/2012 | Staff

Posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT by IbJensen

A Circuit Court has decided that Florida election law applies to everyone but Barack Hussein Obama. In response to a suit brought by Florida resident and Democrat Party member Michael Voeltz challenging Obama’s eligibility to the Florida ballot, Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Florida election law “…is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.” This means that the Florida Statute which says, “the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…” is null and void when it comes to Mr. Obama’s nomination to the presidency.

“If the plaintiff was challenging the candidate’s eligibility for any other office, his analysis would be correct and [the law] would apply,” said Lewis of Voeltz’s suit. However, according to the Judge, “…Political parties determine their [presidential] nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve…” In short, Mr. Voeltz’s contest of Barack Obama’s eligibility will NEVER be permitted in a Florida court; for voters do not nominate the president, political parties do in balloon filled convention halls! With this ruling, Lewis has spared Barack Obama the necessity of having to prove his eligibility for office as no Florida voter will have the right to question it, the language of the state’s election law notwithstanding!

Lewis also passed judgment on the natural born citizen challenge of plaintiff Voeltz, ruling that as Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, he is also a NATURAL BORN citizen and therefore meets that constitutional requirement. “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” exclaimed a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.

Perhaps the most remarkable of Lewis’ contentions was his statement that “it is the plaintiff’s burden…to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.” For the judge did not allow Klayman the right of discovery–the right to subpoena Obama for proof of his eligibility! “How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, went on to say “The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written.” “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great.”

The bias and lack of honor displayed during the past year by the American legal system represents not only a threat to the Constitution, but to the continued existence of the Republic. When citizens mistrust the integrity of the court, they lose faith in their right to expect and receive justice. Klayman said “…if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”

Unfortunately, ignoring both the law and the Constitution has become standard fare for the nation’s judges. Mr. Klayman may need a miracle if he expects the law to be fairly applied in his client’s appeal.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; crookedjudges; evilobamaregime; florida; liars; michaelvoeltz; naturalborncitizen; obama; phonyinwhitehut; voeltz; worldisgoingbonkers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
Get this 'judge' OUT!

How have so many in this country in positions of power decided to turn a blind eye to Obama’s questionability? It’s as if they just don’t think the law appllies. It’s as if Obama was to murder a 17 year old white kid, it would be seen as totally acceptable under the circumstances. If Obama didn’t pay his taxes, it would be okay because Michelle was down for the struggle. If Obama stole a car and crashed it while smoking various substances and completely out of his mind, and the cops said the pressures of the office could mitigate this all would not only be good, but would not even be reported in the media. If Fox mentioned it, they would be dismissed as liars.

1 posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The judge was appointed to the bench by a Democrat governor. He must be beholden to the parry elite.


2 posted on 07/08/2012 2:52:42 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The “fix” is in ..... all the way up to SCOTUS.


3 posted on 07/08/2012 2:53:31 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I think there may be some very serious cases of judicial intimidation going on! Surely there is one honest judge in this Country who cannot be bought or intimidated?


4 posted on 07/08/2012 2:53:54 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that bastard out of MY White House!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
How can a peasant bring suit against an emperor? Who do they think they are?
5 posted on 07/08/2012 2:54:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy
The judge was appointed to the bench by a Democrat governor. He must be beholden to the party elite.

Tell that to Al Gore.

6 posted on 07/08/2012 2:55:09 PM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I think a lot of these “judges” are afraid that they might be labeled as being “rasis” if they don’t side with Barry. Everybody Loves Barry. Especially the so called “courts”. Who needs the U.S. Constitution when they’ve got Barry?


7 posted on 07/08/2012 2:58:06 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Help reduce voter fraud in America! If you see something, say something!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

How ironic: this is the same judge that decided Gore v. Bush in 2000.


8 posted on 07/08/2012 2:58:37 PM PDT by upchuck (FACEBOOK... Share pointless stuff with friends you don't know. Beg for intrusion into your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I guess blind justice is above his pay grade.


9 posted on 07/08/2012 2:59:22 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

I like absentee ballots in FL so I can google every judge that is on the ballot.


10 posted on 07/08/2012 3:02:51 PM PDT by omega4179 ( el 0bama comio un perro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
Photobucket
11 posted on 07/08/2012 3:04:23 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
then again I can't remember Larry Klayman ever winning a case

Klayman is a sort of Al sharpton or Jessie Jackson with a law degree

.

12 posted on 07/08/2012 3:05:03 PM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
we would be no worse off or perhaps even better off if judges were selected for each trial in much the same way as jurors

we’d see a lot more common sense and less egomania and a lot more justice

.

13 posted on 07/08/2012 3:07:27 PM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Dictators don’t have to follow the law. If he gets elected, he will attempt to change our laws so he could stay in office forever. Don’t laugh at this one folks, that’s what dictators do. Then there will be only one way to get rid of him.


14 posted on 07/08/2012 3:08:14 PM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Well, that was 2000. Today, it’s the Chicago Way.


15 posted on 07/08/2012 3:09:25 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; butterdezillion

SHOCKING! Obama is above the Law! Shocking!

BTW, do you think that Traitor John Roberts had an influence with this Judge?


16 posted on 07/08/2012 3:09:45 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
... exclaimed a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.

Larry Klayman ... this guy is snake bit ... has he ever won a case?

17 posted on 07/08/2012 3:10:10 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

No challenge to Obamas legitimacy is ever going to go anywhere.


18 posted on 07/08/2012 3:13:20 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I just love these satire pieces.


19 posted on 07/08/2012 3:15:08 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Agreed. They’ve proven they can get to anyone. Anyone at all. If sending Col. Lakin to jail didn’t prove how serious they were about keeping the lid on, nothing will.

The truth is never going to come out as long as he’s in office. Afterwards? He might release it himself. It would be the ultimate F-U to a nation he obviously hates and did his best to destroy.


20 posted on 07/08/2012 3:23:30 PM PDT by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; mickie; flaglady47
Larry was Lesterized.

(Trayvon case, another corrupted Florida judge)>

Leni

21 posted on 07/08/2012 3:25:25 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

Islamics and democrats unite to cut off Adam Smith’s invisible hand and to gouge the eyes out of “Blind Justice”


22 posted on 07/08/2012 3:27:06 PM PDT by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I recall the mid-1990s and what patriots endured to pressure Congress to finally! hold real hearings on Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Today the Obama threat is more serious vis-a-vis the existential threat to our Republic; but it was clear that the Clinton Administration was covering up deaths of American citizens at the hands of government employees.

I am glad that Americans did not run away back then.. I am old enough to remember W.W.II. I am glad that I knew both Americas.

What is going on today with those Americans screaming "Run away, run away!"

23 posted on 07/08/2012 3:31:40 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Political parties determine their [presidential] nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve…”

So...the "sovereignty" of the two political parties, trumps the Sovereignty of the state.

This is how revolutions begin.

24 posted on 07/08/2012 3:32:46 PM PDT by Kakaze (I want The Republic back !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Get this 'judge' OUT!

Miss Newt's comments on outing liberal activists judges? Romney, ah hell, nuf said!

25 posted on 07/08/2012 3:33:26 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
then again I can't remember Larry Klayman ever winning a case


Yes, he has won a case against the Federal government. Recently:


The Washington Times - "[Obama] White House must make visitor logs public, court holds ; Judicial Watch wins ruling on FOIA Wednesday, August 17, 2011

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that White House visitor logs maintained by the U.S. Secret Service are agency records and, as a result, are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act if not covered by one of the law’s many exemptions.

In a setback for the Obama administration, which had argued that the records did not have to be made public, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, in a 19-page opinion, sided with Judicial Watch, a Washington-based public watchdog organization, in a case challenging Secret Service arguments that the visitors’ logs were presidential records and, as a result, exempt from public disclosure.

In her ruling, Judge Howell, whom President Obama named to the bench in July 2010, said the Secret Service had not met its burden to show that the requested material either fell within an FOIA exemption or would have been unreasonably burdensome to search.

“While there are some limits on what an agency must do to satisfy its FOIA obligations, the defendant has not met its burden to establish that the search requested by the plaintiff is so unreasonable as to require a blanket rejection,” the judge said.

“Therefore, the proper course of action by the Secret Service is duly to process plaintiff’s FOIA request, disclose all segregable, nonexempt records, and then assert specific FOIA exemptions for all records it seeks to withhold,” she said.

Judicial Watch had asked the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors from Jan. 20, 2009, to August, 10, 2009. ”

-end snip-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/17/white-house-must-make-visitor-logs-public-court-ho/

It's not an easy thing to do by winning in the slanted and corrupt courts who favor the DC Establishment.

26 posted on 07/08/2012 3:46:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kakaze
This is how revolutions begin.

Stock up on ammo; start building networks; if it doesn't exist form a local militia; start training; stock up on food-stuffs; stock up on medicines.
Things will likely get 'interesting' pretty soon.

27 posted on 07/08/2012 3:49:45 PM PDT 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 24 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Apparently, justice is merely a concept, whereas fear is a powerful motivator.


28 posted on 07/08/2012 3:51:42 PM PDT by GBA (To understand what is happening to America and why, read The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Maybe someone should file treason charges against nancy polosi for cert. barry to be prez- using sheriff joes affidait that O’s BC is a forgery. that should grant discovery huh?— hell, i’ll do it if someone knows a attorney that would do it and draw it up.. I’m sure a treason charge would grant a dicovery on the matter- ????


29 posted on 07/08/2012 3:52:41 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Where does it say Klayman had anything to do with that?

Klayman and JW have been suing each other, and Klayman hasn't been associated with JW for years...about the time they started producing results.

30 posted on 07/08/2012 4:04:27 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Actually, in this case, the judge may be legally correct.

Q: Who elects the President of the United States?
A: The Electoral College.

Q: Who do the people vote for when they vote for the President of the United States?
A: They vote for an elector who pledges that on the first ballot of the Electoral College, that he will vote for that given candidate. If no candidate wins on the first ballot, the electors are no longer bound to vote for “their” candidate and may vote for anyone.

Q: Can state law demand proof of a presidential candidates eligibility?
A: This varies, but generally not, for the peculiar reason that, while the constitution sets eligibility requirements, congress has never created the necessary “enabling acts” essentially to create the rules needed to do so.

That is, they have never designated anyone to verify if a candidate is qualified, how they are to do this, what will happen if it isn’t done, and penalties for not doing so properly.

However, this is an entirely national government jurisdiction, so the individual states are not permitted to interfere.

Importantly, the judge did err on at least one count, equating any citizenship with “natural born” citizenship.


31 posted on 07/08/2012 4:06:38 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

The correct suit would be TREASON=

the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.
a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.


32 posted on 07/08/2012 4:15:54 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
... a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.

Ah! I see the problem right there....

33 posted on 07/08/2012 4:16:25 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Klayman and JW have been suing each other, and Klayman hasn't been associated with JW for years...about the time they started producing results.

You got me there Con. I see that Klayman the founder and chairman of Judicial Watch are no more.

Obama is still going down this year one way or the other. ;-)

34 posted on 07/08/2012 4:17:38 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Not that JW is any great prize, but I believe that Larry Klayman is no longer affiliated with Judicial Watch

so Larry's record is still intact .... unless he won that lawsuit he brought against his mother

.

35 posted on 07/08/2012 4:29:09 PM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Klayman did have some “success”...against Dick Cheney. (He joined forces with the Sierra Club to sue Cheney regarding his energy task force meetings.)

It pleased Bill Moyers so much, he interviewed Klayman on his PBS show “Now”.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_klayman.html

Klayman ultimately lost.

36 posted on 07/08/2012 4:37:13 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
Maybe someone should file treason charges against nancy polosi for cert. barry to be prez- using sheriff joes affidait that O’s BC is a forgery. that should grant discovery huh?— hell, i’ll do it if someone knows a attorney that would do it and draw it up.. I’m sure a treason charge would grant a dicovery on the matter- ????

The problem with this route is two-fold: 1 -- You have to draw the reasoning from failure to qualify to "aid and comfort" of the enemies of the Several States, and 2 -- you have to prove the intentionality thereof. {#2 may not sound like the most important of things, but likely without it the case will be dismissed.}

#1 is actually easy; show how putting someone who cannot legally be President is placed in the President's role of Commander In Chief destroys the legitimacy of the Chain of Command for the military rendering all orders not directly stemming from the Constitution to be invalid (due to the properties of authority).

37 posted on 07/08/2012 4:44:17 PM PDT 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 29 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Actually, in this case, the judge may be legally correct.

I beg to differ, if the following is accurate:
“the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…”
then it says that the nomination to any person may be challenged; it does not restrict the whom of who is nominated, or the how.
The Office of President of the United States is an Office, obviously. So it, too, must be challengable.

There could be argument that Obama has not won the primaries (or has he? I don't know) and is therefore not yet nominated…

38 posted on 07/08/2012 4:50:20 PM PDT 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 31 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
The correct suit would be TREASON=
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

You're using the wrong definition; you need to use the one found int the Constitution.

39 posted on 07/08/2012 4:52:28 PM PDT 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: IbJensen

But it doesn’t.

The law applies ot everyone but the Devil.

It’s really quite obvious.


40 posted on 07/08/2012 4:57:47 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

can you put that in plain terms that i could understand—i’m a oil field worker and i’m not much of knowing (law) -thanks.. ha ha..


41 posted on 07/08/2012 4:58:31 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

your right — sorry


42 posted on 07/08/2012 5:01:26 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“Importantly, the judge did err on at least one count, equating any citizenship with “natural born” citizenship.”

Actually, he said that someone born a US citizen at birth was a NBC. He did NOT claim every citizen is a natural born citizen.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98872379/Voeltz-v-Obama-Order-of-Dismissal-Florida-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-6-29-2012


43 posted on 07/08/2012 5:08:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I thought if (2) witnesses stand up in court and testify (under the treason law) that the BC is a forgery you will be proven correct. and the opposing party will have to prove you wrong.. i didnt think a treason case could be dimissed under 2 witnesses.. but maybe i got it all wrong


44 posted on 07/08/2012 5:13:41 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Must belong to the Robert’s School of Making Sh*t Up.


45 posted on 07/08/2012 5:17:04 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
can you put that in plain terms that i could understand—i’m a oil field worker and i’m not much of knowing (law) -thanks.. ha ha..

Sure.
The Constitution defines Treason as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Further it says: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.", which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.

Interestingly, it may be possible to use multiple signatured documents to 'witness' the "overt act." This is because the signature on the legal document is bearing witness to the document. (When you have something notarized, that is taking a person to officially recognize the document, that is one witness, and then you yourself presenting the document is a second witness. The "two witness" requirement can be traced back into the ancient law of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law.)

Previously I said it was easy to show the fulfilling of the "aid and comfort" portion of the definition for Treason. [S]how[ing] how putting someone who cannot legally be President is placed in the President's role of Commander In Chief destroys the legitimacy of the Chain of Command for the military rendering all orders not directly stemming from the Constitution to be invalid (due to the properties of authority).

Perhaps a better way to explain this is to imagine yourself a Private, the lowest of the low, militarily speaking. Imagine that you've just received an order from your platoon's Lt; where does he get the authority to command you? It's actually not from his position, if it were anyone could forge a set of orders assigning him to that position and then you would be bound to follow all those orders; no, it is from his commander, the company Cpt.
The Company Captain, likewise, receives his authority from the Battalion's commander the Col. And this goes on and on until it reaches the Army's General, and the Army's General receives his authority from the President. The President, in turn, receives his authority form the Constitution, which places the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Army & Navy; the Marines are part of the navy, and the Air Force is an extra-constitutional organization spun out from the Army Air Corps).

So then, if the person who is claiming to be the President does not meet the Constitution's restrictions on qualification, then that person cannot be the President and therefore cannot be the Commander in Chief; if he is placed as CIC then the Army's General has no legitimate authority because he cannot derive any from the person acting as President because the President has no legitimate authority himself. So the entire chain of command is literally null and void, it is like cutting the hook off of a chain and then expecting the chain to pull the hook: it can't because the whole thing is no longer anchored.

Thus the entire structure of the military is compromised and thus virtually any action can be challenged as illegitimate. Remember, "I was only following orders" has been soundly discarded as an allowable defense, but this situation is even more insidious because even if you, the private, are following orders those orders are likely to be invalid precisely because of that broken chain of command; i.e. even what would otherwise be legitimate orders are not legitimate.

That's why putting an ineligible President into position would be treason.

46 posted on 07/08/2012 5:39:02 PM PDT 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 41 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Must belong to the Robert’s School of Making Sh*t Up.

...doesn't that belong in humor writing, like Good Omens or somesuch?

47 posted on 07/08/2012 5:41:00 PM PDT 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

“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”, which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.

you have mike zullu and sheriff joe has said openly in the news it is a forgery.. they are the 2 witnesses


48 posted on 07/08/2012 5:43:07 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Actually, he said that someone born a US citizen at birth was a NBC. He did NOT claim every citizen is a natural born citizen.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect; if someone is born a US Citizen via the 14th Amendment then are they not statutory citizens and therefore not natural born citizens?

Though this may have to do with the fact that the 14th Amendment is a fraud. (Never properly proposed/passed.)

49 posted on 07/08/2012 5:48:21 PM PDT 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: chicken head
you have mike zullu and sheriff joe has said openly in the news it is a forgery.. they are the 2 witnesses

But not in court. This is where things get difficult; every time someone tries to bring something up regarding eligibility itself they are denied standing.
In fact, I've become convinced that 'standing' is a method they [government] use in order to keep you from being able to challenge them.

50 posted on 07/08/2012 5:51:56 PM PDT 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 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