Posted by By GeorgeM at 13 July, at 20 : 00 PM
Print
Here we go again. Another Mickey Mouse lawless judicial action, this time in Arizona (again). Of course, Van Irion was sloppy in not naming AZ SOS Ken Bennett specifically. But it was pretty obvious who he was referring to, even to a brain-dead liberal judge. I think that offense is sufficient to warrant discipline or even impeachment of Bolton, don’t you? By the way, have you noticed that Van Irion seems to usually avoid referring to his clients by name?
Member of Liberal judicial shock troops Susan Bolton, who also blocked AZ immigration law.
Van, good luck in appealing this to the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals
The Georgia case plaintiffs were David Welden, Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell.
|
|
|
American Courts Are Lawless
If you believe that America is still a nation of laws, we have bad news for you. Courts now twist legal precedent to rationalize the political outcome they prefer. Judges decide who will win a lawsuit based solely upon who the parties to the lawsuit are, which party has more political power, and which party reflects the Judges’ political philosophy. Laws mean nothing to these people. Precedent means nothing. Words have no meaning. Black is white if that is required to achieve the desired outcome. If you think I’m exaggerating in any way, you have not been paying attention.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. This week’s ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissing Liberty Legal Foundation’s Arizona Certification Class Action lawsuit proves the point, yet again. The ruling proves that Judges will go to any lengths to avoid dealing with the Natural Born Citizen issue. In this case, the court claims that they don’t have jurisdiction over the defendants because, according to the court, the defendants haven’t done anything that would make them reasonably anticipate being hailed into court in Arizona. That’s right, according to the Arizona District Court, sending a signed certification that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President to the Arizona Secretary of State and asking that Obama be placed on Arizona ballots pursuant to Arizona law is not sufficient to make the DNC reasonably expect that they might be subject to Arizona law. Wow, please re-read that last sentence. It is stunning, but it’s true.
Susan Bolton’s ruling says, “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants will make a representation to all fifty Secretaries of State and ‘request that this Court take judicial notice that Arizona is one of the states.’ However, an act national in scope, not targeting any particular person or place, is insufficient to establish persona jurisdiction.” To be specific, LLF alleged that the DNC had in the past, and would again, send a certification to the Arizona Secretary of State officially asserting that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and asking that the state of Arizona place Obama’s name on ballots. Now, I believe that the Arizona Secretary of State is a specific person. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I hadn’t heard any news that Arizona had decided to have a non-specific group of people serve as Secretary of State. I also believe that the Arizona Secretary of State has a specific office address. Again, correct me if I’m wrong on that point.
Obviously Ms. Bolton simply wanted a particular outcome, based upon political considerations, and twisted the precedent to fit that pre-determined outcome. In order to determine that her court lacked jurisdiction she concluded that the DNC’s act of sending a signed certificate to the secretary of state was more like a non-Arizona company placing an ad in a magazine that is circulated nationally. Such an ad would not make the non-Arizona company reasonably expect to be dragged into court in Arizona if the ad proved to be a fraud. Well, that precedent is arguable too. But the point here is that the DNC specifically sending a signed certificate to the Arizona Secretary of State, asserting a specific fact and asking for the State of Arizona to act in a specific way under Arizona law, is not the same as a non-Arizona company taking out an ad in a national magazine that happens to get circulated in Arizona.
The test for personal jurisdiction over a defendant is whether that defendant reasonably should have known that their act would make them subject to the laws of the given state. Ask yourself, if you sent a signed certification that asserts a specific fact to a top state official and asked that state official to spend millions of tax payer dollars based upon your assertion of fact and that fact was false, would you reasonably expect that a court in that state might want to talk to you sometime in the future? Would that be reasonable?
This obscenity of this ruling is just the latest in a long line of examples that prove that America’s courts no longer follow the law. The law is meaningless to them. They do what they want and justify the outcome by twisting precedent beyond any recognizable meaning.
Liberty Legal Foundation will continue to look for one honest judge. We dare the courts to prove us wrong. Follow the law.Follow precedent. Stop twisting words to mean the opposite of their plain language meaning. If we find such a court we will tell everyone we can that we have found an honest judge. Until then, we will continue to present the truth and watch as evil self-identifies.
We will be appealing this ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, we need your help. Please understand that evil hates those that expose their true nature. Because of our fight against evil I have been falsely accused of intentionally lying to court, in two different cases, including the Arizona case. As you well know, evil always accuses those who expose their deeds of the types of things evil does. In the Arizona case Susan Bolton “warned” (read “threatened”) me to not pursue cases that have already been decided. She was referring to the natural born citizen issue as a whole. That’s right, a sitting Federal judge threatened me to not pursue the natural born citizen issue because it has, according to her, apparently already been decided.
So, it is virtually certain that the evil we fight will try to have me sanctioned for continuing to pursue truth. We need your help to keep fighting.
We can’t force the judicial system to follow the law. But they can’t force us to stop telling the truth. We are free as long as we refuse to allow evil to take our freedom. They can harm us, but they cannot take our freedom unless we give it to them. We will keep fighting and we will keep our freedom. Please help us continue to fight.
For Liberty,
Van Irion, Founder
We need your help! Liberty Legal Foundation relies entirely on the support of our members to litigate our cases. Please donate what you can today to show your support for our work to restore the Constitution.
To donate by mail, make checks payable to “Liberty Legal Foundation” and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923.
|
|
|
|
SIDE BAR
Last week we got official notice from the U.S. Supreme Court that our petition for review of the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling in our Georgia eligibility lawsuit had been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. You can see the file-stamped petition HERE.
Our Georgia eligibility lawsuit is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a SUBSTANTIVE ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution. All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia Courts’ substantive ruling. The Georgia Courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia Courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen. They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue. Procedural issues are almost never accepted by the Supreme Court, and even when they are, they do not resolve the underlying substantive matter. Such procedural issues result, at best, in a case that goes back down to the lower court with an order for that lower court to address the substantive issue. LLF’s Georgia case already addressed the substantive issue. So, now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.
We will not know whether the Court will take up our Georgia case until mid-fall. However, if it refuses to take this case it will clearly indicate that the Court simply refuses to address the eligibility issue.
Your support has allowed us to reach this stage of litigation. Thank you! Please continue to help us fight to restore our Constitutional Republic.
To donate by mail, please make checks payable to “Liberty Legal Foundation” and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923.
Please feel free to share, copy and/or reuse any of our legal filings or email communications. Our goal is to restore our Constitutional republic. If any of our written words can help do that by being republished elsewhere, then you are helping us achieve our mission!
Got a Constitutional question?
Share This Newsletter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona News, Ballot News Blog, Georgia News arizona, Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton, Article II, az, ballot, candidate, challenge, citizen, complaint, election, election fraud, eligibility, forgery, fraud, ga, georgeia, hearing, illegal, illegitimate, judge bolton, ken benentt, liberty legal foundaqtion, Minor vs. Happersett, natural born, natural born citizen, obama, obama ballot challenge, SCOTUS, u.s. supreme court, usurper, van irion
or 
Visit us on Twitter!
Visit us on Facebook!
Hang in there Patriots and keep the challenges coming there will be a judge that follows the US Constitution and the rule of law .
Charles, 10 months ago
@ Grorge , , I’ve given $1,500.00 id gladly give every penny I have if I thought at least 1 judge would do the right thing. Looks like their all scared, cowards, spineless. and they all need to be replaced by a judge who is not a yellowbelly. Our whole law system in this country is corrupt. It’s going to be up to the people to step in if were going to remain free. Much blood will be lost and many will die, but the sooner we do this the easier it will be. We can wait to long and forget about it forever. I’m ready, I just wish everybody was!
Marvin, 10 months ago
Let me correct one thing. We do have one lawman, that’s Sheriff Joe. FoxNews should be on top of every word he says but they ignore him. Know why? Look who they get paid by –Saudi Prince Awaleed Biin Talal, that tell you anything?
Marvin, 10 months ago
[...] Our Georgia eligibility lawsuit is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a SUBSTANTIVE ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution. All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia Courts’ substantive ruling. The Georgia Courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia Courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen. They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue. Procedural issues are almost never accepted by the Supreme Court, and even when they are, they do not resolve the underlying substantive matter. Such procedural issues result, at best, in a case that goes back down to the lower court with an order for that lower court to address the substantive issue. LLF’s Georgia case already addressed the substantive issue. So, now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.Source: obamaballotchallenge.com [...]
Beverly Hills Immigration Law: Georgia Pushes for I.D. Checks After Arizona Decision, 10 months ago
[...] Our Georgia eligibility lawsuit is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a SUBSTANTIVE ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution. All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia Courts’ substantive ruling. The Georgia Courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia Courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen. They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue. Procedural issues are almost never accepted by the Supreme Court, and even when they are, they do not resolve the underlying substantive matter. Such procedural issues result, at best, in a case that goes back down to the lower court with an order for that lower court to address the substantive issue. LLF’s Georgia case already addressed the substantive issue. So, now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.Source: obamaballotchallenge.com [...]
CARLTON GARY v. WARDEN GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC PRISON, Nos.?09–16198, 11–10705, 11–15396 D.C. Docket No. 04:97–cv–00181–CDL, July 12, 2012, 10 months ago
[...] Our Georgia eligibility lawsuit is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a SUBSTANTIVE ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution. All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia Courts’ substantive ruling. The Georgia Courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia Courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen. They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue. Procedural issues are almost never accepted by the Supreme Court, and even when they are, they do not resolve the underlying substantive matter. Such procedural issues result, at best, in a case that goes back down to the lower court with an order for that lower court to address the substantive issue. LLF’s Georgia case already addressed the substantive issue. So, now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.Source: obamaballotchallenge.com [...]
CARLTON GARY v. WARDEN GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC PRISON, Nos.?09–16198, 11–10705, 11–15396 D.C. Docket No. 04:97–cv–00181–CDL, July 12, 2012, 10 months ago