Skip to comments.SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN BARNETT, KEYES ET AL V OBAMA ET AL
Posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by Elderberry
On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.
This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:
a. In the United States of America presidential elections are conducted by individual states, through state ballots and the states are the ones vetting eligibility of different candidates to be on respective state ballots. Presidential candidate has to be a Natural born citizen based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution.
Legitimacy of the state ballot and state elections is a right and a function guaranteed to the individual states based on the 10th amendment, as it is not one of enumerated powers reserved for the Federal government. No decision by Congress, no ratification by Congress can usurp such powers.
b. Plaintiffs are stating, that 2008 election was not legitimate, as Mr. Obama is not a Natural born citizen, being a child of a foreign national and not having any valid US vital records. Recent disclosure of Mr. Obamas purported long form birth certificate shows it to be a forgery, CT Social Security number 042-68-xxxx, that he is using, was never assigned to him and there is evidence of fraud and/or forgery in his Selective Service certificate and his educational records.
The Plaintiffs were denied standing and the case was dismissed. Current decision by Bond v United States gives the Plaintiffs standing to proceed. In an unanimous decision the court stated The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of Federalism. See New York, supra, at 181.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
piece of cake
all the Pres has to do is produce his newly released birf certificate for the court, the one that clearly shows he was birthed in Hawaii, as certified by doctor and state official U. K. Lele
end of case
Stop teasing me!
Well, you missed a certain element about it being examined by a document expert. And the claim that that document is a forgery...and that the people have a right to examine the original.
Well, if the pirate Roberts’ court has decided to grant standing and thus discovery will proceed, albeit slowly, then the globalist have decided to toss barry the bastard under the bus. The next few weeks should be fast and furious changes, like Biden resigning for medical reasons, then Hillary appointed as VP, then Barry resigning to give the Rodhamster time to run her wheel seeking ‘election as an incumbent’.
Don’t get excited everyone. In mere seconds the post will be filled with those telling us what a waste of time and a distraction and how we can’t win with this issue and....
And the whole concept of right and wrong, legal and constitutional issues will again be ignored because the anti-birther brigade will ‘not’ be ignored.....
You mean the BC that clearly identifies a non-citizen as his father, thereby proving obastard is not a “natural born” citizen?
Yeah, it won’t go anywhere, but that’s because nobody in authority has the guts to open that can of worms. However, the law and facts (as shown by obastard himself) are clear: he’s not eligible.
she's 'on the record' as sayin she'll not seek the Presidency....it's time for Biden, or Edwards or Kerry to get another chance.
. . . ..a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:
US Commission of Civil Rights
United Nations High Commissioner ffor Human Rights, Geneva
International Criminal Bar, The Hague
Regional Office - Americas, Montreal
Laura Vericat Figarela, Barcelona
and the United Nations Commissioner for Civil Rights Defenders, tel. +41 22 917 91 51
Why serve copies to the foreign agencies?
State attorneys general need to open a can of whupass on the bastard. If five or six would do it for the fraud perpetrated on those states, the sonofabitch would have to resign or be indicted.
I like Orly, but I think she is wrong here. The Presidential election is one held by an Electoral College. The States do not even have to hold elections to determine whom they "send" to the Electoral College, and the people they "send" are Constitutionally free to vote for whomever they want to. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution clearly envisions that the Electoral Collage might choose someone who is not eligible. Eligibility is clearly the responsibility of Congress, not the States, and Congress abdicated.
State laws assign the majority vote to electors do they not? There may be a couple states that don’t but I believe that’s the case for most or am I mistaken? Serious question, not being a twit.
Likely answer is that if proven ineligible, he’s guilty of a number of international laws as well, including war crimes.
yes but the electorate are not required to cast their vote for anyone.
Ping soliciting legal comment on Orly Taitz’s latest effort:
“On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.
“This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:...”
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.