Archive for the ‘Courts’ category

Barack Hussein Obama Is He Eligible or Not-Followup Three

October 26, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama Is He Eligible or Not-Followup Three

Lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that citizens of the United States of America “lack standing to bring the lawsuit”. Every citizen should be completely outraged as to the stupidity of this decision!

The dis-honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick* “concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.” “Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.” “Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

Again, every citizen should be completely outraged as to the stupidity of this decision! Does Surrick recognize these words?

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, …do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Does Surrick even understand who “We the People” are? Does Surrick even understand who Congress represents and thus works for? Did Surrick even study the Constitution of the United States? This is a most dis-honorable decision by a dis-honorable judge.

Non-citizen “voters” may “not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring”; but CITIZENS do. Maybe Surrick may recognize these words—

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. (Emphasis Added)

*Updated Footnote:

Obama’s Birth Certificate Judge-Obama Linkage Update www.freerepublic.com/focus/

Dis-honorable connections?; U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, Barack H. Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Christopher B. Seaman (former law clerk for U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick) and Sidley Austin law firm.

And More… http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick

Advertisements

Barack Hussein Obama; Is He Eligible or Not-What is He Hiding?

October 19, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama; Is He Eligible or Not-What is He Hiding?

Is it legal or “A Birth Certificate Change You Can Believe In?” Change you can believe in by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Ephesians 4:14)

It appears that there are those in America who desire “change” at the selfish cost of compromising foundational Constitutional eligibility prerequisites.

For those who do not know, the Constitution declares that; “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.”

In other words there are just three basic eligibility prerequisites to the office of President:

1. a natural born citizen,

2. attained to the age of thirty five years

3. been fourteen Years a resident within the United States

The first two are definitively determined only by a valid Birth Certificate and the other by valid documents related to residency, each, very easily accessible.

Every candidate for the Presidency of the United States is required to meet the aforementioned eligibility prerequisites and, in this writer’s opinion, must submit valid proof when a legal challenge is made from any citizen. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/

“Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records.” “In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s “natural born” citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

A Birth Certificate Change You Can Believe In?

“The “birth certificate” claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a photoshopped fake.” http://web.israelinsider.com/

“Inconsistencies undermine FactCheck report on Obama “birth certificate” “…a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.” http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/

“A 2007 Associated Press photograph, suppressed until now, shows the school register of the child who is today known as Barack Hussein Obama but was officially listed then as Barry Soetoro, whose citizenship was listed as “Indonesian” and whose religion was listed as “Islam.” The visual evidence starkly contradicts the Obama campaign’s claim that he was not a Muslim and confirms that he is a national of at least one other country.” http://web.israelinsider.com/

“To date, Barack Obama has refused to produce a paper copy of his “vault” birth certificate, which is the full birth certificate record from the state.” http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/

BERG v. OBAMA et al-“Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status” http://docs.justia.com/cases/

Since Obama does not want to answer the challenge of his citizenship, ask his ancestors and older citizens of Kenya!

Is it legal or “A Birth Certificate Change (Lie) You Can Believe In?”

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” Ephesians 4:14

The 16th Amendment and Income Taxes?

July 26, 2007

The 16th Amendment and Income Taxes?
Amendment XVI (1913)-The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.
“…Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

According to Attorney Thomas Cryer, “[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can’t be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech.”www.worldnetdaily.com

WorldNetDaily.com reports that, “The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.”

Attorney, Thomas Cryer [LSU Law School, Baton Rouge, LA, J.D. 1973, Honor Graduate] has taken on the IRS and has won a precedent setting case. http://www.youtube.com/

WND said that Cryer “argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.” The article goes on to state that Cryer asserts that, “There’s no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there’s no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation.”

Attorney Cryer had asked the IRS to show him the legal authority that made him liable for the income tax but the IRS did not respond.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
Mark Chapter 12 of the Bible says;
14: And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15: Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16: And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.
17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (Mark 12:14-17)

Have we as citizens of the U.S. rendered more to “Caesar” than his due?

In this writers opinion there is a major legal threshold issue also, and that is, is there truly a legally ratified Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

“Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.”
www.givemeliberty.org/taxes/notratified

According to his Motion to Dismiss (United States v. Tommy K. Cryer No. 06-50164-01 Western District of Louisiana Shreveport Division) Cryer argues that, “It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that insofar as the government purports to apply the income tax law as imposing a tax on wages, salaries and fees personally earned, it is in conflict with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and is, as so applied, unconstitutional and not entitled to enforcement.”

In his Motion, Attorney Cryer goes on to state that, “Based upon recent cases involving claims that wages are not income there is an apparently common misconception, an erroneous understanding or belief, that the issue of whether wages, salaries and fees personally earned are “income” within the meaning of the income tax law and, particularly, “within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment”, has been settled. It has not. One government official contends that wages are constitutionally taxable income because the Supreme Court has not found them to be otherwise.”

The LieFreeZone Website says “THE TRUTH: The income tax law, although it is carefully written to APPEAR otherwise, does not actually tax your wages, salaries and fees that you earn yourself because the Constitution does not allow the federal government to tax those earnings.”

The Site further states that “The Sixteenth Amendment DID NOT authorize the federal government to tax your PERSONALLY earned wages, but only that part of your wages that is PROFIT, or GAIN above and beyond what you gave up in order to receive them. Can you say what part of your wages are above and beyond your personal investment in earning them?” www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. The question is, have we as citizens of the U.S. rendered more to “Caesar” than his due?