Posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT by IbJensen
(Trayvon case, another corrupted Florida judge)>
Leni
Islamics and democrats unite to cut off Adam Smith’s invisible hand and to gouge the eyes out of “Blind Justice”
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!"
So...the "sovereignty" of the two political parties, trumps the Sovereignty of the state.
This is how revolutions begin.
Miss Newt's comments on outing liberal activists judges? Romney, ah hell, nuf said!
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.
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.
Apparently, justice is merely a concept, whereas fear is a powerful motivator.
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- ????
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.
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.
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.
Ah! I see the problem right there....
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. ;-)
so Larry's record is still intact .... unless he won that lawsuit he brought against his mother
.
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.
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).
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…
You're using the wrong definition; you need to use the one found int the Constitution.
But it doesn’t.
The law applies ot everyone but the Devil.
It’s really quite obvious.
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.