Posted by By GeorgeM at 16 January, at 21 : 56 PM
This article by Montgomery Sibley, who has pro se litigated multiple challenges to AKA “Obama’s” eligibility. He laments dismissal because he couldn’t prove “injury” attributable to the ineligible Marxist usurper’s theft of the highest office in the land. Actually, it’s not hard at all to prove an injury, but the judiciary sets the bar even higher, claiming that one must prove unique, specific injury. No class action suit could ever be filed if such demands were made of them. It’s obvious that we have a fraud in office, yet we are told, in various jurisdictions, such things as:
- All he has to do is fill out an application and pay $1000 (in spite of statutes saying otherwise and Article II)
- Even Mickey Mouse can run for President in NJ. (Sure enough. He also donated to “Obama’s” campaign, too.)
- “Obama” wasn’t yet nominated, so case can’t proceed (even though he legally was)
- You can’t prove unique, specific harm
- “Obama” is a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii (even with absolutely no valid, legal proof, PLUS proof of forgery and fraud).
- The issue already has been blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.
-The Secretary of State has no ministerial duty to vet candidates (even though he/she vetted others and the Supreme Court says they have to.)
- Or, they simply refuse to hear it, or “lose” the case papers, as SCOTUS did- TWICE.
So we rush at fast forward into another national tragedy, with the usurper and his minions emboldened by their imagined mandate (even with massive electoral fraud) and no need to run for office again (I’ll be more flexible after the election, Dimitri), unless his minions manage to set aside the 22nd Amendment (Maybe they’ll make it part of the 2016 NDAA).
But, take heart in the fact that Richard M. Nixon won 49 states in his triumphant 1972 re-election, but was later sent home to San Clemente in disgrace. “Obama’s” sins are far, far worse than anything that Tricky Dick ever committed.
Sibley “Sticks and Stones” article:
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2013
My second Quo Warranto
suit against Mr. Obama was predictably dismissed by Judge Bates on December 19, 2012. His Order of Dismissal
was premised upon the now familiar ground of “standing” — a relatively recent judicial invention which imposes upon every lawsuit filed a requirement – not
found in the Constitution or enacted laws and unknown
to the Framers — that one have an “injury” before the Court has jurisdiction. The absurdity of this notion is found in applying the reductio ad absurdum
argument to demonstrate that this “doctrine” creates an absurd result that necessarily follows from its acceptance. But I digress for this is not the time to detail the complexities and absurdities of the “standing” doctrine. I will take that up here and on appeal in due course.
Rather, a significant footnote to the Order of Dismissal: I timely moved to Vacate the Order of Dismissal
and asked that Judge Bates Disqualify himself for — among other reasons — his employment of the pejorative term “birther” to describe me in the Order of Dismissal. Thecommon understanding
and ad hominem
use of that term is: “A conspiracy theorist convinced of his/her intellectual superiority and rightness about Obama’s birth on another planet, star or galaxy far, far away and long, long ago–or anywhere as long as it’s not in the U.S.
In response, Judge Bates employed in his Order of Dismissal only one powerful legal argument to justify his use of the offensive term “birther” to me: ”Other courts have applied this term to describe the same challenges that Sibley makes to President Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President.” Oh, that makes it O.K. does it?
By that fine legal reasoning, because Hitler called the Jews “disease
” and “vermin
“, Judge Bates could use those terms as well when determining a lawsuit brought before him by one of that faith.
Are we sure that life-time appointments for federal judges with absolute judicial immunity is really the way to go if this is the intellectual firepower we are getting?