CERTIFIGATE
Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over
Court rules inauguration cancels 'standing' in Obama case
Posted: December 22, 2011
10:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND
The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceled by the inauguration of Barack Obama.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed to meet the Constitution's requirements for the presidency.
The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led by lawyer Orly Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
Taitz said her plaintiffs definitely will pursue further action, probably a request for rehearing at two levels of federal court, while Kreep told WND he was working with his clients on the results, and they soon would make a decision regarding an appeal.
Get Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Real Birth Certificate?"
The issue was the "standing" of the groups bringing the complaint against Obama. The district court essentially said nobody had standing to bring a complaint, but the appellate judges said the individuals who were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair outcome – including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard the ticket.
(Story continues below)
The individuals were Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, candidates for the White House on the American Independent Party ticket in California; Gail Lightfoot, a member of the California Libertarian Party; who was a write-in candidate; and Markham Robinson, a certified California elector for the American Independent Party.
The judges' panel observed: "These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor."
The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.
"This notion of 'competitive standing' has been recognized by several circuits," the opinion said. "We, too, have upheld the notion of 'competitive standing.' In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the 'potential loss of an election' was an injury-in-fact sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican party officials standing. In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations."
The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking "to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage."
However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.
"The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as president," the judges wrote. "Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.
"Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said.
In a footnote, the judges confirmed that "some cases" have held that competitive standing continues beyond a given election, but they don't think so in this case.
The court also dismissed a quo warranto action – essentially a court case demanding to know by what authority a given official is acting – because they believe such an action can be filed only in the District of Columbia, as well as FOIA claims requesting information.
The case also unsuccessfully alleged violations of the federal racketeering law, RICO.
"We've sent our recommendation to the plaintiffs," said Kreep. "I was surprised [by the opinion] given the comments made by the justice Berzon about this was an important constitutional issue that needed to be resolved."
Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.
"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number."
"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.
Her plan is to submit motions for rehearing at the 9th Circuit and other courts, based on the newest ruling, which seems to contradict earlier rulings she said she obtained in related cases. Her cases that were dismissed because they were brought before the inauguration and therefore lacked the requisite "ripeness" demanded by courts.
"It seems we are residing within a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime where the courts and judges are simply used as puppets to come up with some excuse to deny the complaints," she told WND.
WND previously reported the case claims Obama's qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.
Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six-dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, to keep his records concealed from the public.
He even withheld the document he has since released when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.
Kreep, on behalf of Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California; and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state; had argued that there is precedent in the U.S. for removing an unqualified chief executive.
That happened in North Dakota, Kreep argued, when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor in the 1930s. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.
The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution's age requirements.
The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.
"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people," the plaintiffs' earlier brief said, "as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.
"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements. … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy," the brief said.
The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a "natural born citizen." WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has claimed or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.
While Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, includeing kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are "avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"
"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
The video:
One recent case to go to the high court was brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.
When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled."
"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.
The same two attorneys also had another case that ran through the state court system that raised similar issues and ultimately was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which simply posted a notice it would not hear the case.
The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:
Read more: Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=380197#ixzz1hN3IQL97
73 comments
Posting as Jack Hotchkiss (Not you?)
Post to Facebook
Gregory Hill
Judges whom hold International Law first but holding the Constitution hostage will have a price to pay. Treason is the word for now.
Reply · 40 · Like · Follow Post · 10 hours ago
Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla · Top Commenter
Gregory Hill, where International Law is mentioned?
Reply · 2 · Like · 5 hours ago
John Sutherland · Top Commenter · Longmont, Colorado
Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla - Don't be disingenuous. Everything being done by members of this federal government are supporting the NWO and the Committee of 300 goals. I suspect you need to do a bit of research on the subject to learn just how bad this situation is for the United States.
Reply · 12 · Like · about an hour ago
Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla · Top Commenter
John Sutherland, quote yourself the relevant allusion to International Law. IANAL.
Reply · Like · 21 minutes ago
David Barba · Top Commenter · San Diego, California
Birther is a misnomer...A more appropriate name is gullible obama shill fools for those who think sealing your birth records is normal. Those who question should just be called common sense Americans
Reply · 36 · Like · Follow Post · 10 hours ago
Laurie Brown · Subscribe · Top Commenter · Palm Desert, California
It's just another "label" directed @ slandering people who want the TRUTH.
Reply · 14 · Like · 2 hours ago
Dale Hankemeier · Delwood of Elwood
Better yet, David, is to be called a "Constitutionalist.!
Reply · 17 · Like · 2 hours ago
David Herman · Top Commenter
Dale Hankemeier To be a Constitutionalist, you first have to have a clear understanding of the Constitution. Birthers apparently do not have this understanding.
Reply · Like · 32 minutes ago
View 3 more
Nathan M. Bickel · Top Commenter
The Republican Party is shooting itself in the foot by not getting behind the birthers on this eligibility issue. Birthers such as I will not care to vote for the GOP nominee who sits on his hands in complacence to Obama's unconstitutional non natural born citizen status.
For us birthers, it will no longer be a choice of voting for the "lesser of the two evils" but whether we care to even vote [at all] for the GOP nominee who will represent a political party who turned a blind eye and participated in this unconstitutional charade.........
Reply · 26 · Like · Follow Post · 11 hours ago
Max Kennedy · Top Commenter · Kentucky
The Republican party is currently doing the best it can to have a dishonest primary season and is part of the problem.
Reply · 9 · Like · 10 hours ago
Yvonne P Rivera · Top Commenter · Sullivan
so don't vote. your loss. what unconstitutional charade are you referring to? the election/selection of 2000?
Reply · 2 · Like · 6 hours ago
Herman Vogel · Top Commenter
Yvonne P Rivera You must have backed Gore,,,LOL
Isn't he the one that has been using fake "scientific Evidence" to make Millions off of Useful idiots in the Green Movement and still waistes more energy then 20 average homes???
Liberals: I couldn't live like that....
Reply · 20 · Like · 4 hours ago
View 11 more
Walter Jacque · Top Commenter · University of Phoenix
This is justifying CHEATING, pure and simple. This is the liberals revenge for 2000.
It is rumored that the cheating will be far worse in 2012.
Question: will the American people be too chicken and accept the results, or will we have a second civil war?
Reply · 18 · Like · Follow Post · 9 hours ago
Yvonne P Rivera · Top Commenter · Sullivan
i certainly do not hope so. with the taliban waiting in the wings? you will be the first they select to recondition. you know that is exactly what our enemies are waiting. this nation is willing to sacrifice 4000+ plus lives to spread/preach democracy and spout about how christian we are, but can't accept the idea of democrary at home. such hypocrisy i've seen from those that really do not believe in the American dream at all.
Reply · 2 · Like · 6 hours ago
Charles Strasburger · Top Commenter · Washington, District of Columbia
What actually happened in 2000? The liberal fiction? Nothing was ever proven....but perhaps since liberal trash have so perfected "projection" while they were cheating in 2000, and trying to get people to believe it was the right doing it.
Liberals lie folks, its what they do......about time everyone saw it... History is very clear.....
Reply · 8 · Like · 2 hours ago
John Dennis Pauley
Yvonne P Rivera Wow! Reading your post is like looking at a negative of a photograph. You have everything backwards.
Reply · 4 · Like · about an hour ago
View 3 more
Chris Farrell · Top Commenter · New Orleans, Louisiana
Do you really think that Obama / Soetoro is going to relinquish power in a fair and legal election? Do you put anything past the 'Manchurian' Muslim from Mombasa and his minions, the master manipulator of the media? 'King Hussein' Obama and his Muslim Brothers from the Hood will create the emergency he needs to set aside the Constitution. He has unlimited funds with which to proceed from the Islamic network of money transfer operations. There is no paper trail when a Muslim sends money to another Muslim through their traditional method. A Muslim can go into a location anywhere in the world, put down fifty G's and pay a small service fee and another Muslim in New Orleans, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston or Miami can walk in and pick up the fifty stacks with which to keep the criminal illegally occupying the Oval Office in the White House. The mass media and our judicial system, infiltrated and dominated by liberal scum, shall facilitate his abduction of the office of the president of the United States for four more years. Vote for Ron Paul. An overwhelming victory for Ron Paul is the only hope left if government 'of the People, by the People and for the People' is not to perish from the Earth.
Reply · 15 · Like · Follow Post · 9 hours ago
Sylvia Carter · Top Commenter
Yes the MSM and the Judicial system are in on the conspiracy too
Reply · 10 · Like · 3 hours ago
Chris Clark · Redan High School
oh sure vote for that crazy person who doesn't care if they have weapons of war yep Ron Paul is the man
Reply · 1 · Like · 2 hours ago
Laurie Brown · Subscribe · Top Commenter · Palm Desert, California
You had me until the Ron Paul rhetoric. He scares me.
Reply · 5 · Like · 2 hours ago
View 8 more
William Nealey Jr. · Top Commenter · None
does anyone expect an intelligent ruling from the ninth circuit court of IDIOTS??
Reply · 14 · Like · Follow Post · 2 hours ago
Craig Driver · Richland High School
The Ninth Circuit Court of Socialists.
Reply · 7 · Like · 2 hours ago
John Sutherland · Top Commenter · Longmont, Colorado
I don't expect a constitutional ruling from the Ninth Circuit, and haven't since the 1980s.
Reply · 5 · Like · about an hour ago
David Herman · Top Commenter
John Sutherland Probably because you didn't even realize the 9th Circuit existed until yesterday.
Reply · Like · 36 minutes ago
View 2 more
Gene Friedrich
What is it when they say, Bought and Paid for? Kiss America Goodbye as there may not even be " one righteous", in the House or Senate! Certainly not in the Courts!
Reply · 9 · Like · Follow Post · 10 hours ago
Rose Hackney · Top Commenter · The Consortium
No one wants to handle the hot potato of Obama being a fraud and declaring that the Emperor has no clothes on.
Reply · 8 · Like · Follow Post · 4 hours ago
Raynette Gilbert
Rose, I hope someone grabs that hot potato soon, or we will be the late great United States.......I've done my research....Respectfully
Reply · 1 · Like · about an hour ago
Mark Costanzo · Top Commenter · The concrete and asphalt jungle
it's a good thing we don't have to except the courts ruling as the last word! remember "WHAT EVER YOU TOLERATE YOU PERPETUATE "
Reply · 8 · Like · Follow Post · 7 hours ago
John Sutherland · Top Commenter · Longmont, Colorado
Mark, you raise a good point. The people have to start nullifying the federal courts as well as the federal 'mandates' that are unconstitutional. Civil disobedience works pretty well as Gandhi showed us some years ago.
Reply · 4 · Like · about an hour ago
David Herman · Top Commenter
John Sutherland Civil disobedience only works if you have enough people to be disobedient. When has there ever been a gathering of birthers that has exceeded 150 people?
Reply · Like · 35 minutes ago
Cletus Amlung · Top Commenter · University of Louisville
It helps the sane majority of Americans to think of Birthers like a case of Herpes. Sure you may always get the occasional flare up, but it's easily manageable.
Reply · 6 · Like · Follow Post · 10 hours ago
Chris Farrell · Top Commenter · New Orleans, Louisiana
Cletus Amlung, With a name like that and in view of your comment I suspect that your mother is also your sister.
Reply · 15 · Like · 9 hours ago
Bonnie Bright Gilliland
I we are not ready to listen to our opponents (citizens) concerns whether we think them just or not we shall, ultimately, listen to the voice of a dictator who refuses to hear our own. Hate begets hate. Thugs beget thugs. Injustice begets injustice.. We can point the finger or kick the can down the road. Inevitably the time to pay up catches up.
Reply · 11 · Like · 9 hours ago
Newton John · Top Commenter · Project engineer at Media Consultant
Chris Farrell Cletus works for G E what does that tell you. Obama ball sucker he is.
Reply · 17 · Like · 9 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment