Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Courts v. Sovereign American Citizens; John Charlton Explains the Tyranny

This new article in The Post & Email explains the problem of "standing" faced by Obama (in)eligibility plaintiffs in the courts. In so doing, it also probes the abrogation of the fundamental, Creator endowed, "natural" Rights of Sovereign American Citizens, by the government We employ and entrust to be our devoted servants.
Of Very Recent Precedent, a Self-Abdication by the Courts of their Authority to Enforce the Constitution

by John Charlton

(Oct. 7, 2009) — Standing is a legal concept which has been employed in many suits regarding challenges to Obama’s usurpation of office. For most Americans it is a concept which is obtuse, illogical, and non-sensical; but what most do not know that it is of very recent provenance, originating only in the last 35 some years.
That is how it begins. This is how it concludes.

The logic could not be simpler. The cowardice of the Court could not be clearer.

This is why it is so obvious to the common man or woman, that the Judiciary is shirking its duty.

In between, are key excerpts and the overall explanation of Supreme Court rulings, which have failed Us, the People. This judicial malfeasance of the public trust includes majority opining by our purported "conservative champion," Antonin Scalia. Alas, "shirking its duty," is too gracious a depiction. As the "no standing" rulings of the courts in this eligibility matter signal, the authentic United States of America is, in large part, lost to us.

Carlton couples this article today, with a similarly excellent editorial, "Endemic Corruption and what to do about it." There, the absurdity of extra-constitutional government is further explored.

American government must not be allowed to succeed in empowering itself, to supersede the natural law inherent of the People. Our authentic America must be re-established -- and no one will do that, unless We do it.
Arlen Williams

"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Rumors Abound! Let's Keep Our Heads, Compatriots -- Updated 2/3: Obama's Organized Army

perspective, Arlen Williams
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. Therefore He says:
Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
The times are changing and the rumors, they are a-flyin'. Among the NObama, Obamologist, and natural-born-Citizenist blogs, forums, and emails, people are passing it along that...
  • The fix is in, at the Supreme Court -- and everywhere! That's what Larry the Policeman seems to have told us. Anyone in government lifting a finger to investigate Obama will have it chopped off. There is now nowhere to go, to show America that Bogus POTUS is an agent provocateur!
  • Obama's big organizing effort will immediately be turned into a "civilian national security force," thug army, in every neighborhood!
  • A large-scale "terrorist act" will be perpetrated against America by the powers that be behind Barry, giving him an excuse to declare martial law!
  • Assets will be frozen in banks and once they are thawed, dollars will have turned to dimes -- or Ameros.
  • Barack Obama's minions will be screening emails, forums, and blogs, to persecute the fact finders and whistle blowers!
  • Those found to be disparaging "The One" will be herded into those FEMA camps, on those military bases!
  • The anti-Christ, son of perdition, the beast, or the spirit of Adolph Stalin Tse-Tung, or "Bob" from Twin Peaks will be revealed between the ears of Barack -- and dogs and cats will start sleeping together and it will be m-a-s-s---h-y-s-t-e-r-i-a-!-!-!
  • All, within the next few weeks!
Amidst all these rumors and anonymous throw-it-against-all-walls postings, where does the truth lie? Wait, can the "truth lie?" What does that even mean?! Who cares!? Grab the guns, ammo, plastic sheeting and let's start panicking! And don't forget the duct tape!

HOLD IT!

Please? Just... can we... hold it a sec? Take a deep breath and step away from the computers, everybody. (Okay... come back close enough to read, please.) Perhaps the biggest reason for us to keep our heads about all of this is, in some of it, there may be a kernel of truth. Or, an ACORN, sure. So, that is why we need to apply "the fruit of the Spirit" including "self control," a part of which is circumspection -- which means "looking all around" -- and putting things into context with good perspective. Let us take these rumors one by one and do just that. I will try to start us going. If you would like to take it from there, please post comment(s).

1. Larry the Policeman (posted 2/2). This post became a hot item after being posted in eligibility challenger Philip Berg's ObamaCrimes' forum, a few days ago now (typo's forgiven: forum post -- and emphasis is I.O's):
written by larry, January 25, 2009

I am a retired (25) police officer and spent 26 years in the United States Air force as a MSGT in charge of Training for the 482 Security Police Squadron. Was in Vietnam and also served in the Gulf War. For the last year I have been watching this site on a daily basis not believing that Barack Heussein Obama has become our president. I coach a High School softball team and everyone of my players had to porduce a birth certificate to be elgible to play through the state. I hate to say this, but we in a total crisis and something will happen if this man is allowed to continue to lead this once proud nation. I have never posted before but know many FBI, Secret Service Agents, CIA and many other Federal Agents who have told me they are not to discuus this issue about Obama or they will be terminated from employment. We all need to take a step back and pray that something will come out on all of these lawsuits. I spoke to the Supreme Court Justice in my state who advised that the US Supreme Court have been ordered to throw out any case that deal with the fraud President elect. May God Hlep us All
I.O. read through the numerous Larry Bishop (pseudonym) post and spoke with MommaE, who had spoken to Larry on the phone. Larry was vetted to a degree and MommaE says he checks out with her.

However, it was also noted by observers at Zapem that t
he Hatch Act prohibits or restricts federal employees' participation in election-related work and that it is common for government investigators to be warned not to do private work aside from their assigned duties. Witness the trouble Ohio Job & Family Services director, Helen Jones-Kelly caused herself for investigating "Joe The Plumber," Joseph Wurzelbacher -- all the more reason for internal memos! Does that explain all there is to explain, here? I.O. does not know.

As to the alleged tip-off by the state Supreme about the federal Supremes, one would want to know the exact words used, in what sentence(s), and in what context. It could have been an off the cuff remark said in conjecture, possibly which Larry read into. It could be the rantings of a drunken judge in a barroom. It could mean a number of things, only one of which is exactly what those words of the pseudonymous Larry relate on the face of it. I.O. requests that Larry ask MommaE to help to put him in touch with a lawyer, if he does not already have one, then to make a more detailed personal statement in writing, whether public or in cognito. Seriously. This allegation is about treason. It is hardly something to "post and ghost" about.

2. Obama's organized army (posted 2/3). Effectively, the man started this rumor himself, pushing "community organizing" and referring, during his campaign, to a "civilian national security force, that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded," as the United States military. The Obamacentric organizing has continued, through the transition and into this "presidency," with "Organizing for America," focusing on, among other things, policy advocacy for the socialism-stimulus bill.

Presently, they want Obama followers to hold house meetings, to sell their unprecedented socialist mega-pork plan, which feeds money to hugely burdensome statist programs while it funds socialist and illegal immigrant shadow party operations, ACORN and La Raza. The "stimulus bill" balloons our national debt, overburdening future taxpayers. Such tax burdens sap personal investment into our economy, put a vice-like squeeze upon church and charitable giving, and severely impose upon our general economic freedom and the opportunity to better our condition. Obama's ops serve their neo-Marxist spin by a video. You can sign up for it, here. Want to?

Is there reason to be concerned? Gravely concerned. Is this an unprecedented and fascistic attempt at manipulating the political process of America's Sovereign Citizens, in a top-down fashion? Yes. Is it a thug army? Only by a poetic usage of those words, may that now be. (Does that mean "yes?" You decide.) Is it a "civilian national security force?" No -- well -- at least not yet and by the context of any surfacing plans, or the potential reactions to such developments by Americans, that would not seem soon to come -- not by any conventional measure of political feasibility, at least. Just look at the backlash about ACORN during the campaign, though the mass media was loathe to admit the news. But, could some sort of national or regional crisis cause such a thing to occur? Possibly. Such things happen in nations, or nations would not lose their freedom.

I.O. suggests you call this massive Obama operation, of "organizing" Sovereign Americans and illegal immigrants, a massive, new plan aimed at corrupt, superparty political domination, with the potential for intimidation campaigns to follow. It is well on its way, with the ends not in sight. And as with the "ends," we do not know of the "means" to be applied in the near-term future. Call it "code Red," but not quite the physicians' "code blue." Or, by another well-known analogy, call it the organizing of the frogs in the kettle.

...continuing this as yet unfinished article, expediently -- AW


This post is going to get long.
Think I should add pictures. ;-)

Friday, January 16, 2009

Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges

Quite a bit of contemplating and communicating may be done, before we next hear from the Supreme Court, on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the interested reader is likely to find these items provocative.

In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

In his piece, Phil refers to profoundly interesting analyses of the SCOTUS by two experienced, albeit, anonymous legal professionals. One, by "Lawyer from Missouri" was discovered in I.O's second comment to Monday's post, "Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama."

The other brief analysis is that of the father of FReeper, "hoosiermama" (if accurately copied or compiled; it seems so to me). This hoosier grandpa is a former Federal Appellate Court legal clerk.

Both analyses, plus one other, put Berg's case and potentially others in the "alive and very well" category and fit together to potentially provide significant insight into how the SCOTUS is approaching this. It has also been noted that it took a 5 of 9 majority to accept the Anderson amicus brief, to Berg v. Obama.

Can you write a good amicus brief, for any of the cases being brought to SCOTUS? (See the list, here.) Or, do you know of someone who might? This may be a very good time to do so.

Amidst this analysis, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court might find fraudulent activities in Congress, regarding their treatement of Obama as a certifiably eligible presidential candidate. The next posting in I.O. examines how this may be so.

I.O. may also add another analysis or two, to this posting -- if I can find the time and bandwidth (Internet is down, at home).

Update, 1/16:
I'm sure some have already seen this. I'll link again to Phil's news, to present a second-hand report from Obama challenger attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, as presented by a volunteer assistant, "Chalice." I.O. is glad to see him on the job, in a fashion quite complementary to those of Orly Taitz and of Philip Berg.

Update, 1/16: Back to Berg: Comment #13 in this post by "Zapem" in the site of the same name, provides further clarification. Since further discovery is in order, that is the job of the lower courts, not of the SCOTUS.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama Makes Himself at Home, at the Supreme Court

In yesterday morning's article, "'Obama, Biden to Visit Supreme Court,' Today, says CBS News," the reader was offered a conversation reflecting what Chief Justice Roberts and Poseur-Elect Obama may have been thinking, but not saying, at yesterday's tea time tour.

While the meeting was held in virtual secrecy, nevertheless the perpetual, neo-Marxist movement campaign of Barack Obama found it very fitting to exploit, at this most delicate hour.

No press was allowed, but Obama posed, relaxed and hanging out in style, for his own photographer, as Biden observes and corresponds (but remains more inhibited by apparent respect). Is that the seat of the Chief Justice over which O Bogus presides?

The following is excerpted from whatever after action report, Tony Mauro was able to assemble in The Blog of Legal Times.
According to Court officials, all the justices except Samuel Alito Jr. joined Obama and Biden in the Court's stately west conference room, where they sat in highback chairs arranged around the fireplace. "Light refreshments" were served. Also on hand were Jeff Minear, counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Gregory Craig, Obama's choice for White House counsel, and Alan Hoffman, Biden's deputy chief of staff. No explanation was given for Alito's absence.

The meeting between the two branches resulted from a Dec. 5 invitation sent by Roberts to Obama, inviting Obama and Biden to visit the Court before they are sworn in. Noting that recent predecessors had arranged similar meetings "so that colleagues in public service might become better acquainted," Roberts said the Court "would be pleased to see that sporadic practice become a congenial tradition." Roberts promised a "warm welcome" from the Court. Roberts' friendly tone was notable, since both Obama and Biden voted against his confirmation in 2005.
Is that a smile for the appreciation of history, upon the face of the Chief Justice? He certainly has the opportunity to contribute to history, after all -- simply by doing his constitutional duty, regarding the suits brought before him, sent in order to bring what is concealed in darkness, to light, for the sake of The People and the integrity of our mandated order of self governance.

Or does the smile reflect a bit of the sycophant spirit which has so pervaded America for that one? Time will tell. So nice they got to chat each other up a bit, though.

Mauro compares the kind of meeting this was, as seen from the outside, against a similar initial visit by Clinton and Gore.
But nothing could be learned about the tenor of the Wednesday meeting, in sharp contrast to the last time a similar encounter occurred. In December 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore made a highly public visit to the Court, entering and leaving in public view and greeting employees. A press pool was allowed to witness the discussion between Clinton, Gore and the justices. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush paid a visit to the Court in late November 1980.

The more closed nature of the Wednesday meeting was explained in part as a matter of security, and also the result of the tight schedules of both the hosts and the guests, which left less time for a more leisurely and public occasion.

Still, the rare visit caused a stir at the usually monastic institution, as Court employees gathered in a ground-floor hallway in hopes of catching a glimpse of the pair. Obama and Biden were briefly sighted as they rounded a stairway on their way to and from the Court basement where they had arrived by car with their security detail. As they departed, a clutch of employees cheered, winning waves from Obama and Biden.
Leo Donofrio, Cort Wrotnowski, and Orly Taitz have come up against this Obama fandom among SCOTUS employees. They did a fine job of delaying, not communicating, losing a filing here, sending a filing out for anthrax testing there... all in a day's work, at the ascendancy of the Marxist Messiah.

Not a bad day, to "call in sick," Justice Alito. A dyspeptic day for any others?

Update, 1/17: This comment about the top photo was given me in another place -- interesting:
Obama, dependent on the chair for "support"
Arms crossed - not open, standing behind the chair... hiding??
Not "face to face" with the Supreme Court Justices, but with the camera.
Justices looking downward.

Seems just a photo op to provide an "impression" of his being in control, when everything else about the photo says he's not.
ht: STARWISE

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

'Obama, Biden to Visit Supreme Court,' Today, says CBS News

by Arlen Williams

Well, here is a quaint, little item. Who got the story, besides CBS News? I failed to find anyone else coming up quickly, on search results pages. Was CBS News believed to be especially sensitive about a subject such as this, by the Obama machinery?
Jan. 13, 2009 (CBS) President-elect Barack Obama will visit the Supreme Court tomorrow, according to his transition office, reports CBS News correspondent Steve Chaggaris.

At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says.

This will mark the third time in recent history a president-elect and vice resident-elect have visited the court. The last such visit was made by Bill Clinton and Al Gore on Dec. 8, 1992.

On Nov. 19, 1980, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush made the same visit.

Mr. Obama and Biden will visit with the justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room.

The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present.
I might have excerpted the story in case CBS is unappreciative of fair use doctrine, but it is so brief that excerpting becomes difficult. More here, after I do a bit of searching: "Steve Chaggaris"

Searching in the CBS News site done: Steve Chaggaris is "CBS News Political Director." As in directing viewers and readers, politically, via CBS News? Sounds rather like good ol' Dan, if so. And as I gather, his latest stories have been all about telling us how important Barack Obama is, as he embarks upon the salvation of the presidency at this historically critical time. Well, except that his immediately prior article is entitled, "Michelle Obama Picks White House Decorator." Obviously, a tough, critical newsman, in the post-WWII CBS mold.

Edward R. Mur--I mean Mr. Chaggaris seems to have an ear to the lips of the Obama ascendancy.

And, how do you think the conversation will go, between Bogus POTUS - Bogus Elect Obama and Chief Justice Roberts?
Good day, Mr. President-Elect.

Why, good day to you, Chief Justice Roberts; um... uh... so! Read any letters from Orly Taitz, lately?

Well, Barry-er may I call you, "Barack?" No, I'm sorry, too informal. You see, Mr. President-Elect Soeto-oh-oh-Obama, I've been hearing the darnedest things about you! Please, have a seat and tell me a little about yourself. Begin at the v-e-r-r-y beginning, if you can -- that's the natural place to start, eh? I mean, wherever that place happens... to be.
Alas, we will have to guess how it really goes/went. "The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present." Then again, we simple Sovereign Citizens are used to just having to guess about all this.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Breaking...

by Arlen Williams, 1/7/2009

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama's presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, "This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress... the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election."

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot's vice presidential candidacy in California. It also addresses two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama's failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama's apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.

Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California's Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, "If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid." The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.

Taitz reacts to this new event as a project manager, "We'll continue working, one step at a time. Now we need to get the word out to all the media, congressmen, senators." It remains to be seen whether the "major media" will deign to cover this story, or continue to mainly report news that is negative as it pertains to natural born Citizen actions addressing Obama.

"They will hear the case, then, if they find out... Obama was elected fraudulently, they will find out the whole process was not valid." Taits calls this conference itself an important hearing and then, "I think that we'll have four Justices, then it will go to oral arguments and all American Citizens will be able to hear the case." In such a conference, four Supreme Court Justices of the nine must vote for certiorari -- to have a full review generally including a public hearing. However, the Lightfoot filing is not at this point a petition for a writ of certiorari. In theory, the court may issue an order of the court regarding the process, or pertaining to a then, apparent President Obama's standing.

Taitz stressed that the public must know immediately about matters that may have been hidden in Barack Obama's candidacy, citing one example, that, "Most of the country has no clue that one relative can go to the state of Hawaii and sign an affidavit that 'my relative was born a citizen'" and thus gain an Hawaiian birth certificate for that person, even if he were born abroad. That is the same kind of birth certificate that Barack Obama has not allowed to be seen, but which Hawaiian state officials have reported exists in privately held state records.

The earlier Lightfoot petition to the California State Supreme Court for a stay of that state's Electoral College election had been denied at that level.

One of many potentially odd twists to monitor in this electoral process is that as of Friday, 1/2, the National Archives had received Electoral College votes from only twenty-four of fifty states, not nearly enough votes for Congress to count, tomorrow for an election.

Investigating Obama will continue to monitor this and related cases, and link to news and examinations of them, from other newsworthy sites. The Web site of Orly Taitz relates her perspective, further. Readers are free to repost or excerpt this article.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still "pending?" Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

You may see this blog post, from Leo Donofrio's new hit thread, "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, Obama has a Twin" (catchy tune, BTW).
Everyman Says:
December 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yes, we have been betrayed by men… church-wise in the 60’s and maybe tomorrow, civil-wise by the SCOTUS;
Hell man, do you think you are any more protected from betrayal than our Saviour… take a long look at a crucifix… and remember his best friend Peter?

The only thing within your power is you… don’t betray yourself… know you are fighting the good fight and will continue to fight until you have satisfied yourself that you have done all that you can do to right the wrong… understand this…
if the case fails tomorrow that is not because you didn’t fight … if it dies tomorrow and you fail to continue to fight … you must answer to yourself and all those who have given their life to protect the constitution.

Oh you of little faith; so gifted in knowledge and talent to express your thoughts.
You have but to ask yourself have I done the best I could have done? … is there anything more I can do?
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”

Pity-party is over.
Regardless of what they say… you and I will Know the truth …and that makes all the difference.
You will call upon your Ancestors, for at this moment, YOU are the sole reason for Their existence.

And here, from the blog, Ballot Access News, Oct. 1, 2008, is the post about the McCain court case and the ruling of Judge Alsip.
McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

What exactly do you think is going on? The "comments" link works just fine. Was Justice Alsip (no disrespect intended, Judge) just conning here, finding an excuse to allow McCain on the ballot, while passing the buck?

Is this the view of proper procedure that the SCOTUS maintains?

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Donofrio Ups the Ante v. Comments Discrediting Scalia's Referral and Full Court's Distribution to Conference

There seems to be an effort to discredit the action that Scalia and the SCOTUS took on Friday, Dec. 5, upon the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz petition to stay the Electoral College vote. As you may know, this case was referred by Justice Alito and accepted by the full court to committee, which will assess the case this Friday, Dec. 12, in order to decide upon any further action. It could grant a stay, deny the case, call for a brief from the opposition, call for oral arguments, etc.

Whether the debunking effort is merely ad hoc, or being orchestrated, I cannot say, though the Axelrod Astroturfers are infamous. But I can relate this blogospheric attack, then post Leo Donofrio's replies. While Donofrio's own suit of the New Jersey Secretary of State was denied, he is representing Cort Wrotnowski, in his petition of the SCOTUS, based upon a Connecticut filing against its own SoS.

In the comments below an illinoisreview.com piece, "Supreme Court refers Obama natural born citizen question and moves forward," on Monday 12/8, is found this bold attempt at the debunk:

The Supreme Court has a rule: a litigant may request a stay from the Justice for the circuit where their case arose. If it is denied, they can come back and ask another Justice of their choice. When that happens, the 2nd Justice always refers the matter to the court for conference, so they can get all 9 to agree on throwing it out and be done with it.

If they ever get something they want to grant, they ALWAYS issue an order to the other side requesting opposition. No court would ever issue a stay without having first have heard from both sides.

Obviously, publicity-seeking vexatious litigants have now figured out that they can get a lot of attention by this 2-step process -- its a sure way to get the trash they file listed on the docket. I suppose we can expect this to continue all the way up through January 20th.

Similarly, in Donofrio's own Natural Born Citizen blog article, today: "The Washington Times Coverage of Donofrio and Wrotnowski SCOTUS Cases," he cites this criticism, as reported by Times reporter, Tom Ramstack:
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”
To this denigration dealt by Rep. Norton, Donofrio responds in his piece:

That’s a rather absurd statement. Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all. If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it. But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine. Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court. Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:

No. 07A638
Title:
Ate Kays Company, Applicant
v.
Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District
Case Nos.: (175 EM 2007)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008 Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008 Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia.

—————

No. 7A421

Michigan, Applicant
v.
Corey Ramone Frazier
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Michigan
Case Nos.: (131041)


Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens.
Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.
The intrepid New Jerseyan draws two examples from the SCOTUS record and puts more chips on the table. But, this does not satisfy one comments poster, who sees the bet and raises, as follows:
JudgeDredd Says:
December 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The second time you submit to a second justice, if they deny without submitting to the full court for review, you can submit it a third time. By sending it to the full court for review they can get rid of your case FASTER because that is your last shot. Your case will be one of thousands that the clerks pick through and recommend.It is very very possible (likely?) that not one justice has even seen your brief much less read it.The justices never even see the vast majority of applications.The court takes up such cases at its discretion and you have no Constitutional right whatsoever to even have it considered.
Donofrio sees the bet of JudgeDredd and calls:
Doesn't matter. If you submit it the first time or the second time, the Justice you submit it to has the option of referring it to the full Court and once it's referred, the Court may then deny it together. Upon the referral, if the full Court denies it without distributing it for conference, THEN NO 3RD RENEWAL IS ALLOWED. So, if the Court wanted to send a stern message they could have denied Cort's case as a full court on Monday without scheduling it for conference. Your point is in error. Once the full Court denies the application, you can't resubmit it to a 3rd Justice.
Thus, Leo maintains a countenance of confidence in his case and certainty in his place at the SCOTUS conference table. That tends to boost I.O.'s confidence.


Are you a student of the SCOTUS who would like to state your case, here? If so, the "comments" link awaits you. Or, maybe something just "strikes you," somehow.

Or, if you wish to pass this question on to a litigious lifeline, please click the envelope.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O. <>>>>>>>>>>>>

Addendum: Since much of this post comes across on the negative, I will mention another, rosier scenario, postulated by many. It "holds" that Scalia (and Thomas, perhaps others) may have wanted to dispose of the Donofrio suit in favor of a stronger Wrotnowski case and thus, he waited for the denial of Donofrio v. Wells and immediately referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

In the same set of comments, Donofrio's remarks:
December 10, 2008 at 11:36 am

Just because a Justice refers it to the full Court, the full Court is not obligated to distribute it for conference. Upon Scalia's referral, the Court could have sent a stern message of denial without ever having distributed it for conference. The Court could have acted on Cort's application on the same day they denied mine by simply denying his. But they didn't. I don't know what it means, but neither does anybody else who isn't a SCOTUS Justice.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Plains Radio Webcast, Listener's Notes: Wrotnowski, Donofrio, Pidgeon

Live updating through the evening -- my notes from tonight's Plains Radio Webcast. (Parenthetical comments are by I.O., AW.) After Jill Stanek, on the state of the pro-life movement in an American culture steeped in death are featured Natural Born Citizen Challengers, Cort Wrotnowski (CT), Steve Pidgeon (WA) and Leo Donofrio (NJ) and... Chester A. Arthur.

Interview of Cort Wrotnowski...
  • Donofrio's research on President Chester A. Arthur's covered-up U.K. citizenship brings new implications that will be included in the filing before the SCOTUS.
  • If a SCOTUS hearing is held, Wrotnowski plans for Donofrio to present his case.
  • Press is avoiding Wrotnowski, while it plays up the denial of Donofrio's hearing.
  • Adam Liptak of the New York Times is inqiring, also Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (obdurate leftist propagandist I've had experience with - AW).
  • Joe Thunder reporting on the liveliness of the National Press Club press conference today, by others bringing suit (on the birth certificate). Thunder videotaped it. Pastor Manning was there (oh, oh) in addition to Orly Taitz. Thunder will post on his site, tomorrow afternoon, freedommarch.org. [I.O. Ed., audiotape, here]
  • At one point, one of our objective-as-Goebbels journalists told Ms. Taitz, "...just go home...."
During the break, I see on I.O's sidebar that Leo Donofrio has updated his blog about the Wrotnowski progress at the SCOTUS.
  • Adulterated allegiances are very dangerous for a nation's Commander in Chief to have.
  • After December 15, charge of the process of determining the presidency is passed from the Electoral College (provided they vote, that day) to Congress and the chances of effectiveness of law suits are diminished.
  • Ed Hale pass along from Leo Donofrio that he believes Wrotnowski's case is very strong, with advantages over Donofrio vs. Wells. "Layman" Ed says he thinks this is indicative of positive results.
  • A caller wonders if and when Obama's side will be called in and will weigh in.
  • Cort has to beg off -- claims he's busy. ;-`
  • The Political Pastor program is signing off; TPP announces his chat room at Plains Radio.
  • Ed Hale will have Steve Pidgeon on, who is bringing suit before the Washington Supreme Court.
Break -- if they need to keep beating the SCOTUS over the head with 2x4's so be it, until they gain constitutional sense.

Now, Karen and Ed Hale's Lions' Den program - it's a long, rich, historical evening at Plains Radio, interviewing Steve Pidgeon...
  • Pidgeon's case has standing.
  • Discussion of the 1790 statute, setting forth a "natural born citizen" (BTW, this phrase was specifically stricken from the stature in 1795.) requiring both parents to be citizens and the father, a resident of the USA. This disqualifies Obama.
  • The 14th Amendment calls anyone born in the USA a "citizen." (However, see the declaration of the framer of the 14th amendment, about being a "natural born citizen!"). And this requires Obama's mother to have been 19 (longer story made short) when Barack-II was born. She was 18.
  • Suit says Obama, a. not a natural born citizen, b. not a citizen, and c. arrrghhh!! the program winked out on me and it isn't coming back up!
If/when I can regain the broadcast, I'll be back to it. Coffee... want... coffee.... // OK, it's back for me.
  • I'm guessing that point "c." above is that his Indonesian citizenship revokes his American citizenship (or perhaps he point "c." has to do with the birth certificate).
  • Pidgeon's suit may bring the first case with standing having to do with the birth certificate before the SCOTUS.
  • Caller from New Zealand brings up the writing of John A. Bingham (framer of the 14th Amendment) regarding allegiance, to be a natural born citizen.
  • Obama became a Kenyan citizen officially in 1963, then an Indonesian citizen. He was apparently adopted, from the Lolo Soetoro / Ann divorce records, by an Indonesian citizen. If he is an American citizen after these facts, this means Obama is a naturalized citizen, and utterly not a natural born citizen by anyone's construct.
The one and only Leo Donofrio, Esq. is now on the program...
  • Talking about how lame and inexperienced the states are, at even considering how to verify the citizenship qualifications of candidates. (How can one certify without verifying?)
  • About the history of Chester A. Arthur's huge cover-up campaign to hide his U.K. citizenship. He appointed Justice Gray, who is the very one who wrote the opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case which liberalized American citizenship requirements! (That sounds eerily familiar, if you have read what friends of BHO are opining about citizenship.)
Break. I'm getting angrier, now. Blood pressure rising. "History repeats itself." -- history of corruption of the sacred trust we place in elected officials. God, if you are judging America, please spare the most innocent and punish most, those who most deserve it.
  • Donofrio's point seems to be that allowing a fictitious president allows a great deal of dishonesty -- it allows a corrupt U.S. President. Justice Gray may have been writing "that opinion to sanitize Arthur's citizenship." Quid pro quo dealing is implied.
  • All of Arthur's decisions and actions are tainted for history.
  • Per Arthur's example, "You can't have a precedent if it is a fraud."
  • Donofrio being Donofrio -- warns Pidgeon to investigate how Roger Calero was not allowed ballot access, for the sake of precedent. (Whatever one says about his NJ style, Donofrio is an excellent tactician and strategist.) Says that someone from the SoS had Calero removed and who did that should provide sworn testimony, to build the case. (Selective investigation and disqualification.) There could be a cover-up in WA.
  • Donofrio believes Wrotnowski's application is much better drafted.
  • Donofrio explains how the judge in NJ misapplied his suit: action in lieu of a prerogative writ became forced by the court into a writ of lesser application. Then, they refused his motion by a hoodwink excuse, based upon the procedural error the court itself created. (I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so pardon my terminology.)
  • (BTW, I'm wondering, since Wrotnowski is not a lawyer and Donforio says he was/is pleased at how much better his case is drafted -- it would seem, before Donofrio got to it -- did they get help from another attorney, in cognito? I did take Latin and I played a lawyer in a couple 5th grade vignettes.)
  • The goofball idea that the SCOTUS should turn down the challenges, to avoid unrest and "overturning the will of the people." (David Horowitz is haranguing at conservatives challengers on this, for one.) Donofrio: "I'm sorry, it's not a real election if it's two fraudulent candidates."
  • Pidgeon tells Donofrio that if the SCOTUS weren't interested in the case, it would have been rejected without going to conference. (My point: depends on the Justice.)
  • Donofrio: even though he blogged about the idea that the SCOTUS might have preferred the strength of the Wrotnowski case, he was (stunned) when blog commentators told him Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was referred to conference, a few minutes later!
  • A stay of the Electors before Dec. 15 would be in order, because otherwise there would be a conflict of laws.
  • Allowing not a strictly "natural born Citizen," could allow an orchestrated agent provocateur to become U.S. President. (What about someone of the kind who, during his campaign, would hold a rally in Germany, before hundreds of thousands, claiming himself a "Citizen of the World?")
  • Caller commends those bringing these cases, affirming that the United States Constitution is worth sacrifice.
  • Ed Hale asks someone for a pack of cigarettes and to his credit says "please."
  • Discussion shifts (degrades? I hope not) into some contention of the likely success of the quest for the original certificate of live birth (COLB) but rises back to the point that this is the responsibility of the states' Secretaries of State, to which Pidgeon and Donofrio agree.
  • Ed Hale requests that Donofrio and Pidgeon come back Friday night.
  • Leo has to work all night on the new Chester A. Arthur brief and Cort Wrotnowski will drop it off in SCOTUSville tomorrow.
End of broadcast.
Prayers are in order.
  • End note, 12/9, 2:10am: Despite the media gates, some do pay attention, but just who? Well, among others, I.O. just got a view from Hanoi -- via a Google search: "Wrotnowski obama."
Hey, here's an idea -- pick some of the media gatekeepers you most wish to bother and...
SEND it to the psy-ops jocks!! -- email envelope, below
(And they've called President Bush "incurious." -- Try, ostrich-headed.)


PS: my apologies, but not inclined to do much proof reading of the above.

Friday, December 5, 2008

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

12/17 I.O. update:

1.
The essence of the Donofrio v. Wells case (NJ) is contained in the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case (CT). In both cases, injunctions were denied, but this may be due to a jurisdictional issue [edit: or an issue of standing]. In September, a federal court ruled against a somewhat similar challenge (to John McCain) based, oddly, upon both its particular merits and an overall, jurisdictional observation. Mysteriously, the Donofrio case has remained listed as "pending," somehow, which may or may not have to do with the jurisdictional matter.

2.
A research work in process, this article failed to address the most central document besides the Constitution itself, to the understanding of the
original intent and thereby meaning of the "natural born Citizen" criteria, the letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25, 1787. In it, Jay cites the reason for the criteria being one of national security, that is to guard against a "Commander in Chief of the American army" having foreign allegiance in the way anyone might, who is not a natural born Citizen. This lends essential merit to the dual natural born Citizen criteria pointed out in this article, as a strategist in matters of defense and security would naturally know. Metaphorically, in a neighborhood where crime is high, one does not lock the front door (born in U.S. territory) and leave the back door wide open (commonly and "naturally" understood national allegiance by hereditary right). When security is the concern, one thoroughly guards all of one's vulnerabilities which are pertinent and feasible to be made secure.

12/5/2008

The Donofrio Case: "Natural Born Citizen" -- not about Obama's birth certificate, but the one that goes, "We the People...."

Today, before the United States Supreme Court lies Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State. This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the entire court, it is scheduled for conference on Friday December 5. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral arguments.

Essence of the case

By this case Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) do not qualify as “natural born Citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Standing

Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action.

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.

Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

Corroborative to this case, the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." An extensive analysis citing this is "Defining Natural-Born Citizen," by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a "native born citizen" (see, "The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," blog, The Betrayal).

St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution... which became a recognized resource for determining the framers' original intent. In his Volume 1 -- Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 "natural born Citizen" requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

If anyone knows of an applicable contemporaneous definition of "hereditary right" which does not include patrilineal descent, he is welcome to inform this writer. Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one subject would travel abroad to declare himself a "Citizen of the World" before hundreds of thousands might also have provided relevant warning).

Intended result of this case

The Donofrio suit calls for a stay of the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote, until a constitutionally acceptable means is attained, of presenting the Electors a set of qualified candidates.

During or after their Dec. 5 conference, the Supreme Court could decide upon a number of directions. Their next step may be revealed this very day, or on Monday, Dec. 8, or at some other time. A book could be written of the many potential outcomes -- and historians will write libraries about one set of results, in their hindsight.

"Post Script" in HTML

Leo Donofrio reports that numerous obstacles have been intentionally placed in the way of his petitioning the courts, in both New Jersey and at the Supreme Court. He also names public officials who have at times attempted to mislead him and by their treatment of his case, have obstructed his path to the Supreme Court. That is another story and not an undramatic one.

Donofrio has had three blogs -- and Internet harassment, as follows:

  1. http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen -- used through November 21, until its blog service was hit by a denial of service attack, bringing it down (servers have been repaired)
  2. http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com -- used through November 27, until it became clear that Google has not been at all swift to remove a "flag page," inappropriately citing that blog for "possible Blogger Terms of Service violations"
  3. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com -- hopefully, unmolested as of your reading

This report may be updated as progress is made. For information about the operations of the Supreme Court in such matters, see "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States."


h/t: numerous bloggers and forum posters including FReepers: BP2, joygrace, andMamaTexan

Wish to spread the news of this case? Just click the envelope, below...