I agree with speedy, I too am sick of this Muslim dictator in the White House, but I don’t know what to do. God Bless America

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018459/at-midnight-last-night-the-united-kingdom-ceased-to-be-a-sovereign-state/
THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!

Just registered while listening to the blog radio around 2215 hrs EST.

Heard someone mention Obama instituting martial law.

If the federal government suspends the Constitution, the power and authority of the federal government over the States under the U.S. Constitution reverts back to each individual State under its Constitution and laws. It is the States that created the federal government.

If a “president” attempts to make himself a dictator by suspending the Constitution, he/she does not have that power under the protocol and structure our nation was constructed.

The reasoning Judge Lamberth uses for his Order against the Presentment fails to take into consideration that this IS a case of first impression in the country’s history. Therefore, I would not expect there to be a written procedure in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or statutes that would spell out the procedure to be used under these circumstances. This is where being a genuine Article III federal court judge comes into play.

If no citizen in the United States ever has standing to sit on a grand jury or bring this kind of case to court, then such issue will never be able to be addressed by the courts. It is each individual judge’s responsibility and duty today to address this question the same as Chief Justice John Jay would have approached this matter.

Thank you MtnMyst.

I have been doing more research on Presentments in my old law school books. I find nothing contained therein, not because such action wasn’t a part of English common law, but because, I believe, as a result of the way procedures slowly sprung forth over time from the very first cases in the Supreme Court.

Over the years the Supreme Court created various self-imposed rules that are more often than not used to avoid reaching the merits of cases, as witnessed in Dr. Taitz’s case in Judge Carter’s court. Back when our country was created under the Constitution, people were more honest, to the point where I can see the action of Presentment was not necessary at all, most likely.

Obama’s case is original in every sense of the word. Any approach to this case by any Article III court should be done from a perspective contemporaneous with that of a Chief Justice John Jay court. That is to say, start from scratch procedurally, as if established procedures do not already exist, like they obviously do now after two centuries of judicial history. Maybe the concept of “standing” derived over the years has to be massaged in light of this case. Maybe “standing” to take this case would already have been derived for Judge Carter, if a case like this would have reared its head back when the country was created. Not likely though, as no one back at that time would have been corrupt enough to try something so foolish and damnable.

This situation with Obama, however, is no different than a usurper of any other elected position under State law where qualifications to be a valid candidate are defined by State laws. Here we have a very specific mandatory qualification in the Constitution - “natural born citizen” - required of every candidate for President. Under most, if not all, State laws, if a candidate does not satisfy ALL the requirements to be a valid candidate, such individual SHALL NOT be elected or appointed. Further, for instance, under Ohio law, if a person somehow gets onto the ballot unqualified, and is elected by majority vote, case law dictates that unless the person IMMEDIATELY removes the disqualification upon assuming the position, the electee forfeits the seat legally, that is, the seat is legally vacated. He/she might be there physically, but he/she is not there legally at all, and cannot legally act with force of law under such circumstance - no legal authority.

Here you have a usurper, Obama, who can never remove his disqualification to become a valid candidate for the office of President unless the Constitution is amended. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger realized this, for he supposedly said he would like to run for President, if they would only amend the Constitution for him to be able to do such.

What bothered me most, as it did some others, in reading Judge Carter’s decision to dismiss, was Judge Carter’s statement that he felt most politicians, etc., were honest and had integrity. Well, I have the perfect example of why I believe that Judge Carter is living in a bubble dream world.

Since last year, I have personally been involved in court actions to first prevent an unqualified individual from being placed on the ballot. Since I was an independent candidate, under the State laws I was not allowed to challenge the candidacy of a Democrat or Republican. My opponent is a Republican. The State laws, however, allow a Democrat or Republican candidate to challenge an independent’s candidacy. Obviously that is a clear violation of my equal and due process rights under both the U.S. and State Constution.

I filed for a writ of mandamus to force the Board of Elections to accept my protest as timely and valid. The court ran my case down a gauntlet, dismissing it on procedural grounds, never reaching the merits. I appealed to the District Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the common pleas court ruling, even in light of a recent Supreme Court case that said a writ of mandamus cannot be denied a petitioner who is entitled to it based upon the reasoning that he/she may have a future remedy in quo warranto available.

So, with no second right of appeal, and since every seat from the common pleas court through to the Supreme Court is filled, every last seat, with Republicans, I decided not to spend money on another appeal to the Supreme Court. I instead waited until after I lost the election to bring a quo warranto in the Appeals Court, since they said I had that available to me as a future remedy. The merits of my mandamus case were never reached, and the unconstitutionl State election laws are still on the books specifically hammering down independents with regard to protests.

I’ve said all that to say this. When it comes to trusting public officials, politicians, etc., elected or appointed, very few have the courage and integrity to do what is right when confronted with the opportunity to do so. In my case, this candidate was never qualified since the 2000 election. He was originally indicted for falsification of his election documentation back in 2002, tried in 2003, and found to be “not guilty” of intentionally falsifying his petition affidavit, because a friend on the jury convinced the other jurors that he was too stupid to know he was not qualified, thus he did the falsification “not intentionally.”

Immediately after that verdict by the jury, his attorneys asked the court to seal his case, which the court did the very next day in the early morning hours. It has been sealed to this day. I have an appeal pending, with oral argument scheduled for January 11th, 2010, to unseal that court record based upon the fact that it should never have been sealed, because the court abused its discretion sealing it. That is, the public’s right and need to know their elected officials are legitimate surely outweighs any privacy interests of an elected official in getting or keeping a criminal court case record sealed.

My case locally is EXACTLY the same as that concerning Obama. Obama has taken steps to conceal his records from public scrutiny. Same with my opponent. What I found out during my campaign was just how corrupt the system is, at least in our county. I found that the reason why nothing has been done to remove this usurper from office since January 1, 2001, is that those whose duty and responsibility to do something about it, they have “skeletons in their closet,” that is, the system is hamstrung to the point where the elected officials from both political sides have so much detrimental “baggage” hanging on them, they dare not take steps to do the right thing for fear of those “skeletons” being disclosed to the public.

Our nation is going down, if not already GONE, because of political corruption, and because those in positions of authority and responsibility who are not fulfilling their oath of office to uphold the Constitutions and laws.

The Obama case is a case of first impression, just like mine. The statutes and settle case law dictate clearly what the outcome should be under the black and white facts. Both of these cases solely involve the law, not equity. There is no equity involved in election laws that are mandatory and require strict compliance, at least under our State law. I would expect nothing less of U.S. Constitutional law, seeing as how the deriviation of State laws has “rolled downhill” from the top to the bottom.

The inaction of federal court judges, using the self-imposed rules they themselves have derived over the years, to reject jurisdiction over this Obama case, is nothing more to me than a deliberate abdication of their responsibility under the Constitution to fulfill their “check and balance” role over the other two branches of government.