(s)Elections See other (s)Elections ArticlesTitle: SPACE RESERVED FOR NEWS ON COURT ORDER (BERG Vs. OBAMA)
Source:
America's Right
URL Source: http://www.americasright.com/
Published: Oct 22, 2008
Author: Jeff Schreiber
Post Date: 2008-10-22 21:26:17 by Horse
Keywords: None Views: 6116
Comments: 102
I have, from good and reliable sources, information suggesting that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick will come down with an order and memorandum either on Thursday or Friday. (Phil Berg moved for a summary judgment in his case against Obama and the DNC which among other things demand Obama produce his birth certificate.) This space is reserved for news on that order. Therefore, unless something monumental occurs over the next two days, I will not be reporting anything further so as to reserve this spot for news regarding the decision in the Berg v. Obama case. It should be easier for everyone that you can simply check this part of the page for news of the order without having to wade through anything else. As luck would have it, Thursday and Friday represent the only two days this entire fall that I will not be at the courthouse. However, I will have a laptop--and at the very least a BlackBerry--and will receive the order and memorandum as soon as it is handed down. Immediately, I will relate word as to the general disposition of the case in this spot, with details to follow at some point later. If the order does not, for some reason, come down in the next two days, rest assured that it will be covered here prominently when it does. Common sense, for the past two months, has told me that Philip Berg's case will be eventually dismissed on grounds of lack of standing. Nevertheless, I have had a gut feeling that Judge Surrick may very well just surprise us all -- the information I have been getting over the past 24-36 hours reinforces that gut feeling. Please refrain from calling the courthouse, as I am told that the phone calls are coming in at the rate of several dozen each day. And, as always, keep checking here at America's Right for updates, especially this crucial one. America's Right was the first to report on this lawsuit when it was filed on August 21, and I have no reason to believe that America's Right will not be the first to report on the judge's decision. Thank you, and keep your fingers crossed for not only a decision, but a favorable one. (In case you have not been following this lawsuit neither Obama nor the DNC have refuted any of Berg's allegations which under law means they have accepted his staements as truth. Therefore Berg has asked for an expedited Summary Judgment) Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obamas Not Qualified to be President Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obamas lack of qualifications to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC ADMITTED, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is NOT QUALIFIED to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed ADMITTED. Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. OBAMA - Admitted: 1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya natural born citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya. 6. My mothers maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham. 7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website Fightthesmears.com is a forgery. 8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen. 9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. 10. I was not born in Hawaii. 11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii. 12. I was not born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii. 13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii. 14. I am a citizen of Indonesia. 15. I never took the Oath of Allegiance to regain my U.S. Citizenship status. 16. I am not a natural born United States citizen. 17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961. 18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends. 19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan. 20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. 21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country. 22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. 23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan. 24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a natural born United States Citizen. 25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage. 26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name. 27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name. 28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth. 29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name. 30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name. 31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth. 32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine. 33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed. 34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed. 35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia. 36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a natural born United States citizen. 37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States. 38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia. 39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya. 40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law. 41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth. 42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963. 43. I am not a Naturalized United States Citizen. 44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means. 45. I cannot produce a vault (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii. 46. My vault (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya. 47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses. 48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me. 49. Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me. 50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. 51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama. 52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. 53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro. 54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law. 55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office. 56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America. DNC - Admitted: 1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama. 3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama. 4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obamas eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. 6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a natural born United States citizen. 7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii. 8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obamas citizenship status. 9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President. 10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama. 11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008. 12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States. 13. The DNC admits their Credential Committees Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obamas ineligibility to serve as President of the United States. 14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States. 15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon. 16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from. 17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote. 18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates. 19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a natural born United States citizen. 20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign. 21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States. 22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis. 23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution. 24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a natural born citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiffs rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution. 25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a natural born citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiffs rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. 26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizens interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans. 27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obamas Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, we the people, are heading to a Constitutional Crisis if this case is not resolved forthwith. Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005 (610) 825-3134 (800) 993-PHIL [7445] Fax (610) 834-7659 philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Poster Comment: Whatever happens this case will be appealed to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. Talk radio could get this into the news. Of coiurse next year Obama and Pelosi will ban talk radio from the air. The Internet will be next.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/LatestComments (1-61) not displayed.
. . .
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
real-debt-elimination
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
In that case, the position asserted is that the "federal" court in Colorado had no jurisdiction. First, there's nothing legal about a transfer of a criminal case across the State line. Art. III, § 2, Art. IV, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment. Secondly, there's nothing about this homicide case that justifies Art. III jurisdiction, for there was no ambassador or consul involved. As happens with "pure Constitution" cases, the federal trial court in Terre Haute, Indiana, dismissed the case. Upon appeal, the 7th Circuit described the 100% pure "constitutional" case this way. After recognizing that the petitioners did, in fact, have standing, and that the discovery rules were quite relevant, in particular those regarding "perpetuation of testimony," the appellate court described the case this way, and in this sequence: (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. What did the appellate court teach us as being the jurisdictional basis for the case against McVeigh? 18 USC § 7, "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined." If part (3), here, along with 18 USC § 7, don't register, yet, then there's nothing more than anyone can say that can provide any type of assistance to the general understanding of the problem(s) we're dealing with, here. I was as bad on making this adjustment as anyone. No one other than a respected judicial officer would ever have been able to cure my blindness. That's just to say that I may not be the "voice" that comes with sufficient "authority" that it starts to motivate anyone's taking another look into these realities. However, once these two realities hit, you'll know it, because you'll get sick to your stomach, and your head will ache. This condition may last for several days. It's not the flu. It's "withdrawal." Those who go through that process will say, "I used to be a constitutionalist, but I am now cured of my blindness." The Constitution was not drafted to operate under a Law of the Sea system, but rather a Law of the Land system. We don't have a Law of the Land system, anywhere, as is self-proved by the non-circulation of either silver or gold Coin. To make, then, the immediate connection in the context of the obama- nation's "citizenship," if the only place that requirement is found is in a document that is irrelevant to the current Law of the Sea addicted system, then there is no such requirement. Period. Now, that's NOT a problem that the Supreme Court caused, and neither is it a problem that the Supreme Court can solve. It's a political question, and that means that it's completely beyond their authority to address. "No one" has standing to raise that objection, for there is no such requirement for the "office" of "president" for the "federal government." And no Secretary of State violates a duty by allowing the obama-nation on the ballot. If we were dealing with a Law of the Land system, I'd give you additional reasons why this requirement wouldn't exist under that system, either, but we're not dealing with a Law of the Land system, so that analysis is not relevant, here. "Federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national," and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation." Why was Kennedy assassinated? Because he opposed the "funny money" scam. He would have circulated "United States Notes," not a private banking system's "federal reserve notes," as the paper currency, and he had just requested that the Mint make a fresh batch of the silver-based quarters. There's no way to get the American people sucked into a different "choice of law" for so long as legitimate Money remain in circulation. So, Kennedy "had to go" in order to keep the seduction of this nation on the schedule that the internationalists planned for that phase of the operation. So, we've had that piece of the puzzle staring us in the face since November 22, 1963. Why was OJ Simpson never indicted for both counts of homicide? If the Fifth Amendment applied, that trial court never had the authority to reach the merits of that case, whether "guilty" or "not guilty." We've already addressed the issue of transfer of a criminal case across the State line. If the Constitution were relevant to the Murrah Building bombing case(s), not only would there have been no "federal" court activity, but also all the "state" court activity would have remained in Oklahoma, as was the case for the second trial, i.e., the state court trial, of Nichols. Those obvious deviations from "constitutional standards" may still be too subtle even for the "Court bashers," which is just to say that what is obvious to us here at Legal Reality is rarely obvious to "constitutionalists." However, what is so shockingly beyond the intellectual capability of these "Court bashers" regarding this obama-nation "citizenship" issue is the fact that the "citizenship"-questioning litigants, and the "Court bashers" who are championing those cases tolerate a "popular vote" process at all! When those people show us at Legal Reality where there is ANY remote mention in the Constitution of ANY "popular vote," THEN we'll discuss this "citizenship" issue. The "Court bashers" are invited to go back and read the history for themselves. There were NINE, count them, NINE, not one, not two, but NINE elections that followed the "constitutional" Electoral College process for the election of the president. Then, in 1824, something changed, and "we've" never gone back. In 1824, there was the first "popular vote" for the "office" of "president." If the "popular vote" WERE EVER part of the "constitutional" plan, WHY were there NINE, count them, NINE, elections without any "popular vote" component, at all?! (Ooops! say the magnificently uninformed "Court bashers!"). At the end of the day, we've been so separated from the "constitutional" plan for so long that we wouldn't recognize a "constitutional" system if it clobbered us in the nose. And, buying into 99% of the lies, the "Court bashers" now want to blame the Supreme Court, who have been telling us about these distinctions, i.e., between the language on the page and the actual events going on, for some 200+ years, now. "Court bashing" will NEVER sell, here. What the "Court bashers" do, repeatedly, is prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they have no stinkin' clue what the law is; hence, no stinkin' clue what they're talking about! And, where they go so far as to use the term "treachery" to describe the Supreme Court, I pray to God Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, for swift and pronounced Divine Judgment against such "Court bashers." May those "Court bashers" experience a personal hell on earth that terminates upon their formal repentance to the very same audience to which they spew forth their venomous, America-hating idiocy. May they confess the reality that the Supreme Court ARE the ones who know the reality and that the "Court bashers" are the ones who are clueless on the point. To address some specifics in this particular "Court bashing" atrocity, Justice Ginsberg is NEVER asleep to any of these matters, and may the Supreme Court ALWAYS prefer the anthrax testing, given the circumstances that created that issue in the first place. ( We'll talk about S-11 some other time. ) If there's an insanity at issue, here, then where the shoe fits, it should be worn by those "Court bashers" who think they have any clue, at all, what the legal reality is. They are so removed from the reality as to have the concept of insane apply perfectly. There is NO interference by any Clerk with the Supreme Court. They are as bound to the applicable law as are those Justices. They have more knowledge of the law and the legal reality in their pinky toes than the "Court bashers" have in their entire bodies! While the quote of Donofrio in this "Court bashing" episode is unquestionably accurate, the problem is that the American people have NOT been studying the law for at least the past 50 years, the foundation for which concepts started circa 1791. So, no, Ginsberg is not the one who is asleep here! The "Court bashers" are not only asleep, but also addicted to a fantasy world of make believe. They truly cannot handle the real world, and so they use the Supreme Court as a whipping boy rather than taking personal responsibility for studying into the reality, which they are distant from as not even to realize just how nuts their position is. The "prostitute media" are that, but, this time, they've also got the right idea. Not only do the editors of the "prostitute media" know the legal reality sufficiently well enough not to touch this issue, but also they may also realize the danger that exists from making the deal out of this issue that is being made by the "independent" news sources. There's got to be a reason that the "new world order" forces are cramming this "citizenship" issue down our throats, by running a candidate that doesn't satisfy the "constitutional" requirement. If that purpose is to divide the nation, then won't it be poetic irony that the "constitutionalists," i.e., those who are still blind to the reality, are the very catalyst of the demise of the nation?! What this particular "Court basher" calls "a mockery of everything this country has stood for and what we will stand for in the future" is exactly the OPPOSITE of that. What we're seeing is the unswerving commitment to the law that applies to us today, in Amerika. If it takes this issue to get those of us who are called to understand the legal reality motivated to go back to the law library and do some soul-searching research, then, Ok, this may be both the issue and the timing. But, we'll never understand a word that the Supreme Court are teaching us until we come to terms with why the language of the Constitution hasn't meant "a damn thing" for as long as any of us have studied into the problems that exist at this level. There IS a reason for that, and the Supreme Court have taught us that reason, VERY diplomatically, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseam, for more than 200 years, now. And, out of unsurpassed ignorance, the "Court bashers" turn right around and blame the Supreme Court, calling the following of the law the act of "treachery." That sounds VERY Nazi-communo-fascist to those of us at Legal Reality. ANYtime it's "sanctionable" or "treacherous" to follow the law, the advocates of such a position are actually God-hating, America-hating Nazi- communo-fascists. And, if they don't want to be that, maybe they would do better to invest that time in law research and finding the consistency in what the Supreme Court are teaching us rather than in their mindless "Court bashing." Nothing governmental is as it appears to be. Nothing. Those who are animated by this "citizenship" issue SURELY are at the top of the list of those who realize this fact. So, why is that reality abandoned here? Because they think they know more than they really know. Because they actually believe as true the lies they've been told all their lives, and now that they are experiencing the first head-on train wreck that their lie-consumed perspectives are allowing them to wrestle with, among the thousands of such train wrecks that the Supreme Court have brought to our attention during the past 200+ years, they're angry that their lie-permeated world is not providing them the prevailing legal analysis. And, of course, the student's refusal to do his/her homework is the professor's fault! So, all this time, "money," and energy invested in this "in our face" slam of the difference between the Law of the Land system and the Law of the Sea system is a total and complete waste of time. Now, it's NOT that, IF we'll come to terms with the duality of "choice of law" that we're facing, here. But, if all that one gets out of the study of this issue is anger, and there's no epiphany of understanding as to the reality that the Supreme Court are applying, THEN all of efforts will be nothing but a complete waste of time. There is a mailing address in the "Court basher's" idiotic discussion, and if you use it to send something to the Supreme Court, be sure to include your heart-felt gratitude for their unswerving commitment to the legal reality, as well as your continuing prayers that they never feel inclined to vary from the path of legal reality in the slightest. We would have been shackled and owned by the British banksters a long time ago if it had not been for the Supreme Court's God-inspired wisdom to see many decades into the future of the plans made to destroy this nation. The Supreme Court have taught us everything we need to know in order to defend ourselves against that system that is so "in our face" with its slam against "constitutional" principles. At the end of the day, those who "get it" realize that it doesn't make a hoot or a holler's bit of difference "who" the "president" is. And, it may very well be that this insane, lawless, anti-American, God-hating "Court bashing" will serve The Lord's purpose in awakening a few more minds to the difference between the Law of the Land system, which is evidenced by a currency that is an honest system of weights and measures, e.g., gold and silver Coin, and the Law of the Sea system, i.e., the "federal government" system, which is evidenced by the "funny money" scam. With the "money" goes the default "choice of law." Applying, in the context of the legal reality, the language regarding "qualifications" for the "office" of "president" for the "federal government" that presently exist, I will go on Record, again, saying that the trial court decisions in these obama-nation "citizenship" cases are correct. I can't tell you whether a "no standing" policy will be confirmed, or whether it will be supplemented with or replaced with a "political question" analysis. But, unless a very undisciplined analysis occurs in these cases, there'll be no judicial statement disqualifying the obama-nation for "office" in the "federal government" under Art. II. Art. II applies, if at all, to a Law of the Land system, which the "funny money"-based "federal government" system IS NOT. And, when that result is announced, namely that the obama-nation is not disqualified, feel free to praise God Almighty that the law that applies to us today is not subject to whim or fancy of any jurist, especially those who serve us as Supreme Court Justices, who the "Court bashers" teach us to hate. As a final note, the name of the Court is correctly stated in the address provided in the "Court basher's" idiotic piece. That is to say that if these "Court bashers" did any homework at all, they'd call the Court by its correct name at all times, namely the "Supreme Court of the United States." It is not the "United States Supreme Court," which name does appear a few places in the statutes, but not in 28 USC § 1. That's just to say that where the "Court bashers" can't even get the name right, what else do they have no clue about?! May The Lord continue to guide, encourage, and bless the Supreme Court and all related staff members. May The Lord curse and judge the "Court bashers" until they repent of their "Court bashing" to the same audience to which they have spewed forth their venomous, America-hating idiocies. < end of Taylor's essay > COMMENT IN THREAD KINDA WHAT I FIGURED :) - BUT IT DOES BEG A FEW QUESTIONS... Posted By: hobie Date: Thursday, 4 December 2008, 5:31 p.m. In Response To: TO CLARIFY MATTERS A LITTLE BIT MORE: B.H. OBAMA IS WELL- QUALIFIED TO BE MASTER OF THE PIRATE SHIP CALLED 'THE U.S.A.' (Patriotlad) Hi, P'lad - Thanks for that. :) Not sure why Taylor wanted to expend so much energy picking on the "Court bashers" except perhaps he's unhappy with himself for once having been one. (?) So, however, the bottom line proves to be that no matter where Obama was born, it's not a problem - except that the issue itself stirs some Americans awake to wonder, "Why is it NOT a problem?" and perhaps the powers-who-thought-they-were still prefer we not awaken to that degree. This would also mean there's nothing to prevent Schwarzenegger from running for President (except for all the Americans who would go, "What?!" if he did :). Taylor defends the Court and honors the Court for its ongoing integrity in addressing the reality of the law. That's fine, and I get that. At the same time, he identifies the "funny money" scam as inextricably linked with the "choice of law" we find ourselves presently operating under. I infer that he's implying our acceptance and utilization of Federal Reserve Notes has been the positive indication of our quiet willingness to accept the Law of the Sea as our operational system. In short, we 'voted' for the Law of the Sea by accepting the offer to use FRNs. Therefore, it could be argued, no one's put anything over on us. We agreed to it. It's all legal. It's all on the up-and-up. But is it? In my understanding, the (first) Constitution creates a Trust, and that Trust is "the government". The (second) Constitution is a contract, one that limits what government can and cannot do. The begged question is, "Where is the authority to move the United States from the Law of the Land to the Law of the Sea?" Or is it just, somewhat as TeamLaw suggests, that the Law of the Land is still in operation, and the Law of the Sea is in operation within a separate layer on top of it? Is it all about contracts? Are we on board the pirate ship because in some way or ways, we "signed on" to be there? --hobie
Holocaust museum security at work.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
|