Another unbelievable.
When you read what happened last Friday afternoon, I hope you will be as furious as we are because you will understand the very dangerous direction in which the courts are now headed.
When we challenged Obama's eligibility because he is not a natural born citizen, we filed cases against the DNC in Arizona Federal court and Tennessee State Court. The cases were similar, but did have some important differences. In Tennessee, we were specifically relying on state fraud statutes, because we knew the DNC intended to commit fraud again by certifying a non-eligible candidate for the TN general ballot.
Well, because states have lost their sovereignty, the DNC attorneys were able to remove the case from TN state court to Federal Court. Then the DNC attorneys filed a motion for sanctions against our lead attorney, Van Irion, in Federal court, a court we never filed the case in! That motion for sanctions was replete with blatant and provable lies, which Van pointed out in his response. Ultimately, Judge Anderson of the Western District of TN Federal court dismissed the case and since we have an active Federal case in Arizona we decided not to appeal the decision. We thought the TN case was over. Boy were we wrong.
Friday afternoon, Judge Anderson not only did not address the outright lies of the DNC attorneys, he piled on his own lies in an order to personally sanction Van Irion. His order states that our lawsuit was legally frivolous and that Van was either incompetent or "vexatious" in filing the lawsuit.
Van properly filed a state claim in state court to address this crime that has been perpetrated on all of us by the DNC. The defendants moved the case to Federal Court. Judge Anderson refused to let Van amend or supplement his complaint then sanctioned him because he didn't amend his complaint! Judge Anderson stated Van didn't prove certain facts, but he didn't let the case even get to discovery so that those facts could be proven! I personally believe the Bush appointed Judge Anderson wants Obama to know he's on "his side" if Obama should win the November election.
Van does not deserve this, our case does not deserve this. We are appealing this outrageous decision
So here's the nutshell of our situation:
- We have someone sitting the in White House without any verifiable credentials
- Moreover, by Obama's own admission, he is not qualified for the Office because his father was never a citizen (Minor v. Happersett 1875 - child of two citizen parents)
- No court to date has followed the binding precedent from the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett case, by finding Obama constitutionally ineligible to serve as President
- Attorneys that file to have this Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, upheld are demonized in the media and persecuted by the Courts
- The Congress sits idly by and does nothing
- Mainline candidates for President treat it like a joke
If this weren't really happening, I would think this were the plot of a political thriller. But it's not. This is the America we live in today.
Please help Van fight this attack on his character and on his ability to keep fighting for the Constitution. Show him that you appreciate the work he has done to try to restore our Constitutional rule of law. Please make a donation today.
For Liberty,
Dawn Irion, Co-Founder
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii shows, so he is a Natural Born Citizen.
ReplyDelete“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
Here are sources to turn to for further research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
You never give up, do you.........?:)
ReplyDeleteIf the US Supreme Court were to say:"It has never been doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up," would you interpret that to say "It is required to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that is all that the Minor vs Happersett decision said. It listed the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, parents and place of birth, and said that it was never doubted that if you had both of them, as Virginia Minor did, she was without doubt an NBC.
So Virginia Minor was without doubt an NBC, but that does not mean that to be an NBC you have to have both criteria. One may be sufficient, and the court in fact says that it will not in this case state which one.
In any case, the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, so IF Minor vs Happersett were actually a ruling, the Wong Kim Ark decision would overturn it. So Minor vs Happersett is not "binding precedent."
In fact, there have now been seven state courts (Indiana, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia and Florida and most recently the state of Washington and Maryland) and one federal court (the Tindsdale decision) that ruled that Obama was a NBC based on the Wong Kim Ark decision, and one (Hollister vs McCain) that said the same about McCain. No court has ruled for the two-parent notion.