A Constitutional Amendment to End the US Supreme Court

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book advocating a series of constitutional amendments that aim to, well, increase the power of the supreme court.  According to USA Today the retired federal judge advocates abridging the right to bear arms, abolishing the death penalty, restricting campaign spending, reducing the independence of states, and changing  congressional rules.

The US Supreme Court is a failed, backward-looking institution, and a former supreme court justice's giving advice about government is akin to a former General Motors executive's giving advice about free enterprise or a former Enron executive's giving advice about morals.  Actually, a former Enron executive, including the ones in jail, is better equipped to give ethics advice than is a retired supreme court justice, for the moral turpitude of the supreme court is worse than Enron's.

Instead of Stevens's stale ideas, why not a constitutional amendment to abolish the Supreme Court, which has been a cancer on the American economy since 1803, the year of Marbury v. Madison?  The worst thing Jefferson did wasn't the Louisiana Purchase--it was the failure to overturn Marshall's illegitimate claim that the supreme court has the right to interpret the constitution.  Instead of a Supreme Court, the state courts could set up an arbitration system to adjudicate disputes among states, and Congress could set up an arbitration system to adjudicate disputes with foreign powers.  The rest of the things that the US Supreme Court does, all of which it has mangled, could be done by state courts.  That would encourage diversity, one of the supposed aims of the totalitarian federal state.

Since centralization and excessive federal power has resulted in a stagnant standard of living for most Americans--but not Stevens, who has spent a lifetime living off federal taxes and centralizing policies that have benefited him at the public's expense--it is difficult for me to understand why Americans could possibly care what Stevens has to say.

Of Penumbras and Führerprinzip, or How William O. Douglas Established American Nazism

The concept of a "living Constitution" is dictatorial. That it has gained currency in the US Supreme Court is evidence that the Court's authority needs to be truncated.  The Constitution does not give the Court the right to decide on the constitutionality of laws.  This is what the Constitutions says in Article III, section 2 about the Supreme Court's powers:

>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This does not say that the Supreme Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional.  Rather, it says that the Court has the power to adjudicate cases UNDER the Constitution AND the laws.  In the Federalist No. 78 Hamilton argued that courts had the right to INTERPRET and LIMIT statutory authority:

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

The Constitution does NOT give the Court this power, but Chief Justice John Marshall arrogated it anyway in Marbury v. Madison.   But judicial interpretation, even if granted, does NOT give the Court any authority to invent new interpretations in constitutional "penumbras" or "emanations" as Justice William O. Douglas put it in Griswold v. Connecticut.  The decision to regulate contraceptives is a state level one, not a federal level one.  The distinction is critical because the Court has used this case to arrogate ever more extreme degrees of power to itself.  In this, it has gradually become a dictatorial power.

The Constitution is clear that legislation is the province of Congress. It is also clear that there is a method to change the Constitution via amendment.  Therefore, there is no need for the Supreme Court to do more than INTERPRET existing law. 

During his National Socialist rule Hitler declared that he was the ultimate source of legitimacy in Germany, which he called the leader principle or Führerprinzip.  Under the leader principle all legal, social and economic decision making ultimately rested with him.  In a similar manner, the Supreme Court claims a Führerprinzip to legislate new laws and decide on old ones, which it calls "legal emanations" or the "living Constitution."  This is an outrageous and illegal arrogation of power, and it needs to be stopped. The Constitution is specific. The Court can adjudicate cases, nothing more.  It is believable that it is necessary for the Court to have the power to interpret constitutionality and to limit legislative authority. But that is all.  The living constitution evolves through amendment, not through William O. Douglas's Führerprinzip.

If the justices are self-serving pigs who cannot stop themselves from arrogating power, the American legal system has failed and it is time to reinvent it, perhaps basing a new statutory system on traditional common law.

Pete Hegseth on Elena Kagan

I have a better idea: since the Supreme Court is a failed institution, we should abolish it and make the state supreme courts the courts of final appeal in each state. Inter-state conflicts could be resolved by the US appellate courts as the courts of final appeal.

Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth is an impressive guy.  Contrairimairie sent me this video (which can be viewed here if blogspot chops off the end), and it's great to see an American with brains, courage and hopefully a bright political future.

Raising Arizona: The New Immigration Law

I would have liked to see Arizona pass a different kind of law, a much more aggressive law, such as a law saying that Arizona citizens do not have to pay federal income tax. That really would have caused all hell to break loose.  The anti-immigration law is too tame to pose much of a challenge to the thugs in Washington, although perhaps a case can be made that Arizona has the right to refuse the Supreme Court's illegal power grab in Mapp v. Ohio, when the power freaks on the Supreme Court bench claimed to have the authority to force the states to obey the Fourth Amendment.

I reviewed the text of the Arizona law (part 1 is here and that links to the other parts) and found it a tad authoritarian.  The law prohibits state officials from refusing to enforce federal immigration laws. It says that where law enforcement officials stop or arrest someone, a "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."  In doing this race, color or national origin cannot be considered.  Drivers' license, an id card or other government-issued identification can be used for proof of citizenship in a stop-and-id situation.  State offices are allowed to exchange information about someone's immigration status.  Aliens who illegally fail to register are held guilty of a misdemeanor and if they carry contraband like drugs or weapons they are guilty of a felony.  The law illegalizes blocking traffic to pick up day laborers.  Employers have to verify employment eligibility through something called "e-verify".

There is already a federal law on the books that requires proof of citizenship when someone is hired, which I recall considering an encroachment on liberty when it was passed in the early 1990s.  I do not think this law is any more extreme than that, which I think should be repealed.  I wish Arizona had picked a different area to make a test case of the 10th Amendment because the US government does have the right to regulate immigration. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to naturalize immigrants (too bad President Obama missed out).  Regulation of immigration is not at issue under the 10th Amendment.

I dislike the power that Arizona grants to its law enforcement officials to demand an identity card.  This is not the America that I know.  However, I do think that this is a valid area for state legislation.  The US Supreme Court illegitimately arrogated regulation of search and seizure to the federal government in the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, in which it claimed that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states. That is ridiculous.   The federal government, including the Supreme Court, has no authority to tell the states whether they have the right to search or seize, and any state has the right to tell the federal government to shove that US Supreme Court decision up its derriere.  That decision amounted to violent illegality. F*ck them.

Hence, although I don't like the stop and id  component of the Arizona law, I am glad of two things about it. (1) It really ticked off people in the People's Republic of Frisco, the land of fruit and nuts, and (2) It puts Arizona in the potential position of defying the goosestepping judicial Nazis at One First Street, NE.

Conservatism Is Socialism

The appellation conservative ought not apply to Americans who believe in the Constitution or in liberty. The very word contradicts itself. Today's America differs fundamentally from the plan set forth in the Constitution not because of changing technology or mores, nor because the US Supreme Court has legitimately interpreted changing economic necessity or social values and so updated constitutional principles, but because powerful economic interests have usurped the Constitution, with the US Supreme Court acting as a rationalizing vehicle on their behalf.  To maintain today's economic structure and government is to maintain a form of fascism that is in decline.  The decline is occurring not only in economic conditions, living standards, economic opportunities, freedom of speech, property rights, and the right to keep the product of one's labor. It is also occurring in ever worsening outcomes in education;  intolerant extremists' domination of universities; a media run by bankers' lackeys; misallocation of resources on a scale that is beginning to approach that of the great failed socialist states, the USSR and communist China.  None of this would be possible without the US Supreme Court, which has illegitimately and illegally facilitated the transfer of power to economic elites. 

Given the ongoing economic decline; the absence of respect for law within American legal institutions;  and the failure of the American government to respond to evolving economic conditions, a radical or revolutionary posture is necessary.  To be a conservative is to be the most extreme socialist. 

You Can't Hurry Love: Orly Taitz Files Petition Asking Supremes To Recuse Themselves From Swearing In Obama

I just received this e-mail and the following legal petition from Orly Taitz. The legal petition asks the Supreme Court Justices "to recuse themselves from administering the oath of the President"!

>Please see an attachment. a petition for the Chief Justice Roberts and other Justices to recuse themselves from administring the oath of the President on January the 20th due to the fact that it constitutes a conflict of interest with the conference of the Supreme Court on January the 23rd, when my petition Lightfoot v Bowen will be heard, that states that Barack Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born citizen and not eligible for presidency.

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082

No. 08A524
In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley

v.

Debra Bowen, Secretary Of The State Of California
_____________________________________________________________________________________
On APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
_____________________________________________________________________________

SUGGESTION OF RECUSAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON HE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ANTONIN SCALIA, CLARENCE THOMAS, SAMUEL ALITO, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, STEVEN BRYER, JOHN PAUL STEVENS, DAVID SOUTER, ANTHONY KENNEDY
________________________________________________________________________________________
Petioner(s) Lightfoot, et. al. respectfully suggest that Honorable Chief Justice oberts and Honorable Associate Justices of the Supreme Court recuse themselves from the swearing of Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States on January 20, 2009 due to conflict of interest.


BACKGROUND

The inauguration of Barack Obama (Obama) is scheduled for January 20, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts is scheduled to administer the oath of office to Obama.

Litigants in both federal and state courts have challenged Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President. The specific constitutional question is whether Obama is a natural born citizen, which is an absolute prerequisite to occupy the Office of President.

In addition to this case, 31 cases challenging Obama's eligibility have been filed in different courts around the nation.

This case is currently scheduled to be heard at the conference of all nine Justices on January 23, three days after the scheduled inauguration.

So far, none of these cases have led to judicial consideration or decision on the merits. Procedural obstacles appear to have precluded getting a judicial ruling on Obama's eligibility, one way or the other, no discovery was done yet, there were no judicial subpoenas issued yet to allow discovery, no original documents providing verification of eligibility for presidency or even mere US citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama were seen by any court in this Nation, no US citizen has ever seen any of such documents.

There is genuine and serious doubt about his eligibility. Since adoption of the Constitution more than 200 years ago, the natural born citizen requirement has never been the basis for any judicial ruling. No known President had a father that was a foreigner or alien. Most astounding, however, is that no government official or agency, federal or state, checked or determined Obama’s eligibility. The American tradition of checks and balances has never been in play.

More cases are likely to be brought to this Court. If ineligible, every use of Presidential power by Obama will be unlawful and subject to being declared void. Legitimacy of occupancy of an office is far different than challenging an exercise of power by a lawful occupant. Countless claims of unlawful Presidential acts by persons directly impacted cannot be ignored. It cannot be assumed that procedural obstacles will always stop this Court from having to decide Obama's eligibility.
Thus, some day, probably sooner than later, this Court, including its Chief Justice, may finally have to confront that constitutional question. In the interim, “usurper” will become a routine word. It truly is an unprecedented situation in American history.

One who administers an oath conveys to the audience that the one taking the oath is eligible to do so. Many words can be used in lieu of "conveys", including certifies, endorses, attests, vouches, and ratifies. When one administers an oath, verbal certifications, endorsements, attestations, vouchers, or ratifications are not necessary--acts speaks louder than words.

The audience will not be a small gathering. Millions are expected to be in the immediate area. Live television, replays, newscasts, newspapers, and magazines will bring to hundreds of millions that act of the nation's chief judicial officer and the message his act conveys.

Yet, that judge has and will continue to process claims about the eligibility of Obama to be President. The problem for the Chief Justice and associate Justices is obvious. So is the solution--forthwith excusing and absenting from administering the oath to Obama.


APPLICABLE LAW

This is one of those situations where simply recognizing the issue immediately provides the correct answer. No legal citations or discussion is necessary. Elementary ethics and common sense are more than sufficient.

Neither actual bias or pre-judgment is necessary for disqualification. A judge must disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding where impartiality can be reasonably questioned. To avoid being in that position, a judge must avoid any public or private conduct, by words or deeds, regarding the merits of a pending or impending matter.

Unquestionably, if the Chief Justice administers the oath on January 20, it will be necessary for him to disqualify himself in any case that raises Obama's eligibility. The corollary is that disqualification is not an issue if he declines to participate in administering the oath.

There is no impediment to the Chief Justice declining to administer the oath. Administering the oath to an incoming President is required by the Constitution. But there is no requirement about who must perform that act. Although the Chief Justice traditionally does it, other federal judges have done so. An Associate Supreme Court Justice has done it. So have a Circuit Court and District Court judge.

But it has not always been a federal judge. Twice, New York judges performed the task. The first was George Washington's first term, since no federal judges had yet been appointed. The second was almost 100 years later, when Chester Arthur assumed office.

Indeed, it is not necessarily true that it must be performed by a judge. Calvin Coolidge was initially sworn in by his father, a notary public. Later, he was administered the oath by Judge A. Hoehling of the District of Columbia Supreme Court.

Who does the administration as to the Vice-President has varied even more. But there have been numerous occasions in recent history where the person who administered the oath was not a judge. The Speaker of the House (from both parties) did so four times and the Senate GOP leader did once. Mixed in between have been five different Associate Justices and the Chief Justice once.

28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) states, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.”

Under current case law, the totality of circumstances supports recusal. Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) – authored by Justice Scalia – reviewed the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 455, especially in view of the “massive changes” made in 1974, 510 U.S., at546. It was
specifically noted that, “what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.
Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [i]s required whenever ‘impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.’” Moreover, subsection (a) “covers all aspects of partiality” 510 U.S., at 546, 510 U.S., at 553. It should be pointed out that Canon 3(C)(1) mirrors 28 USCS § 455 (a) in stating that “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Justice Kennedy’s concurrence also made the point that recusal is mandatory here:
[T]he central inquiry under § 455(a) is the appearance of partiality, not its place of origin; 510 U.S., at 563
Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions
about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached
observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be
disqualified. 510 U.S., at 564 and Section 455(a) … addresses the appearance of partiality, guaranteeing not only that a partisan judge will not sit, but also that no reasonable person will have that suspicion. 510 U.S., at 567.
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) – another Supreme Court
case that considered 28 U.S.C. § 455 in depth – similarly emphasized that “a violation of §
455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that
a justice, judge, or magistrate knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality,
notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances.” Liljeberg, 486 U.S., at 850.
Along these lines, the lower courts have determined that:
[T]he judge’s actual state of mind, purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are
not the issue. … The standard is purely objective. The inquiry is limited to outward
manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In applying the test, the initial
inquiry is whether a reasonable factual basis exists for calling the judge’s impartiality into
question.
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).

“[T]he appearance of partiality is as dangerous as the fact of it.” Conforte, 624 F.2d at 881.
Because “a judge is under an affirmative, self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself sua
sponte whenever the proper grounds exist.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th
Cir. 1989)


CONCLUSION

The integrity of our nation’s judiciary, both federal and state, is at stake. So is respect for all judges and belief in their impartiality. Having a system of impartial justice is one of our most cherished freedoms and it must protected.

By declining to participate in administration of the oath on January 20, Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and Honorable Associate Justices will very vividly uphold, not tarnish, our system of justice. This is truly a historic moment. It is not historic because the president elect happens to be one of a mixed racial origin, but because he was able to reach the point of inauguration by hiring an army of lawyers that keeps his original birth certificate hidden from all the citizens of the country, that is particularly troubling since he is coming from the state of Hawaii, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain a Hawaiian certification of life birth and do it based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence. I am sure this event will be studied by our children and grandchildren in school, in History classes. Your decision in this matter will be studied by law students for years to come. I hope that future generations will learn that the Justices of the Supreme Court did not succumb to the pressures of biased media or mob mentality. I hope that the future generations will learn that nine Justices of the Supreme Court were the bastion of the Constitution, of Impartiality, of Justice and did not give a nod of approval to one that refused to prove his eligibility to the citizens of this country.






Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that the foregoing Petition is made in the good faith belief that the facts are true, that the arguments are appropriate, and that the recusal of honorable Chief Justice and Honorable Associate Justices from administering the oath at the presidential ceremony on January the 20th will best serve the interests of justice and the integrity of the judiciary.

January 12, 2009


respectfully submitted,


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,
counselor for the petitioners







Supreme Court of the United States


Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley


v.


Debra Bowen, Secretary Of The State Of California
On APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
_____________________________________________________________________________

SUGGESTION OF RECUSAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON HE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on this 12 of January, 2009 she sent by first-class mail, postage
pre-paid, a copy of the foregoing Suggestion for Recusal to each of the following:
Gregory G. Garre
Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington DC 20530-0001

Debra Bowen
Secretary of State of California
1500 11th str., Sacramento, CA 95814

Signed

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz, ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Bob Robbins's Letter to the US Supreme Court

Bob Robbins just forwarded the following e-mail that was sent to the US Supreme Court

>Revised, December 7th, 2008

To the Most Honorable
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

Although this letter is addressed to you, your Honor, it is in reality an open letter to all of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. And, my hope Sir is that you will make its content available to your esteemed colleagues on the Bench.

Ever since the founding of our great nation, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence, through tenuous and uncertain times at Valley Forge, Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, and thereafter to the final battle of Yorktown, our nation’s future and Liberty hung tenuously by a slender thread. Since those perilous times, we have faced together many other challenges to the existence of our freedom. We endured the war of 1812, the Civil War, two world wars, and most recently the attack on the two World Trade Centers in New York City.

That slender thread was and has always been, the courage and wisdom of the men in the breach of history, whose moral and mental compass turned their wills and their souls unerringly to the cause of liberty, and to the preservation of our nation and its Constitution.

Comes now into the breach in the year 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States. Our founding fathers knew that our nation could be lost by direct assault, or by subterfuge. And it was the latter case to which they addressed the Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution to direct all citizens to the diligence of electing only a “natural born” citizen of this country to be President.

This matter was of such import that they being men themselves born in another nation, excluded only themselves and men alive at the signing of the Constitution, leaving forever thereafter, that only men born of this nation according to the law, and men who preserved their citizenship status only to this nation would ever become President.

Whether the current and most recent candidate elected to that office would ever misdirect our nation or do harm is not the consideration. Whether he indeed meets the qualification of “natural born” citizenship, and has maintained only that citizenship in the United States, is the crucial issue that must be resolved.

If he could have readily clarified this matter and ended this contention, it would seem to honorable and respectful citizens that he should have already done so, as the matter has been brewing for several months. But alas, critical and numerous documents that might shed light on his qualification in this regard have been purposefully and carefully “Sealed” to prevent revelation to public knowledge.

The 300 million citizens of these United States deserve to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have elected a man who indeed meets the Constitutional qualification requirements to become their President or otherwise as the case may be. This President needs that same stamp of approval of those same forefathers who signed the Constitution in order to serve honorably in this most high office.

Several separate cases have now come before the Supreme Court, and another just was denied in the Superior Court of California and has undoubtedly began its journey to your court. Unless this matter is resolved to the letter of the law and the Constitution, there can be no civil rest among the vastly growing number of those who have and those who will yet become aware that a growing shadow of doubt falls upon the qualification of our highest elected official.

Two clear courses, and two consequences lie before us. And the Supreme Court holds the charge and the key to resolution of this most crucial issue. The issue is historical, and critical because a most dangerous precedent can be set, by allowing a President to serve who does not meet the Constitutional requirement set forth by our founders.

Thereafter, any non-citizen could challenge that provision of “natural born” citizen in Article 1, Section 2, citing the already served term of office of one who did not quite meet that requirement.

It is apparent that other entities whose purview should have checked the qualification of the candidates for Constitutional criteria, have failed in their duty. And the matter has been allowed to continue unresolved to the point that multiple lawsuits have been filed, and more are likely to arise. Those entities that failed to verify citizenship of candidates for President must be properly brought to task and the error in their duty pointed out.

Either the matter is taken up and clearly resolved, and the Constitution is preserved, or We the People may look back in history upon a gaping hole burned in our Constitution in the year 2008 by the simple lack of due diligence.

Such a travesty it would be to our collective and everlasting shame, and would place our nation in new degrees of jeopardy.

So now, We the People turn to our highest court for Justice, and for resolution of truly a Constitutional crisis of historical significance. We trust your Honorable Court will not fail to recognize the importance of this matter and will stand with that long line of patriots and defenders of liberty to preserve and secure our nation’s future.

To this end I remain …

Very Respectfully and Sincerely Your Humble Servant,

Name withheld

Mr. Crum Goes to The Supreme Court

Jim Crum has written the following letter to each of the US Supreme Court justices: Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, and Alto:

The Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543

Re: Mr. Obama Birth Certificate

Justice Scalia:

By now you must be aware of the various litigants and the constitutional issues surrounding their requests to secure a valid and authentic long form birth certificate for Mr. Obama.

The long form birth certificate is an exact photocopy of the original document that was prepared by the hospital or the doctor at the time of the child’s birth. It typically includes some very specific information such as the birth place, the doctors’ names, the name of the parent(s), as well as residence. It will usually include a signature of the parent and the physician.

It would appear that instead of resolving the matter by furnishing the authentic document for review, the defendant has chosen to obstruct the matter with legal maneuver and judicial ju-jitsu. Perhaps some might see this approach as appropriate, yet candidly it does not serve:

• The defendant whose eligibility and qualifications may be unfairly besmirched
• The electors who may unknowingly certify an ineligible candidate
• The Republic whose laws must be followed
• The nation who must come to consensus over the candidates legitimacy to serve
• The Supreme Court whose powers will be eroded if they refuse to act quickly

I make no determination to the truthfulness of the allegations being pressed to your body for review. Neither should yourselves, or anyone else, until such a time as the documents are secured for inspection, authenticated, and made public.

It is time to do the job for which you were appointed. Specifically, factually determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve the office as described in the US Constitution.

Sincerely,


Jim Crum

Mairi Responds to Sup. Ct. Clerk Dan Bickell

Hi, Mitchell,
I don't know about you, but I have found this story to be quite infuriating. Mr. Donofrios states the clerk tried to stop and dissuade him from the get-go. Then, to misguide his case, and label it as something entirely different in an apparent attempt to stall, if not completely lose it in other work, just once again adds more fuel to the fire. How DARE a clerk misdirect a filing they personally disagree with. I HOPE Justice Clarence Thomas ORDERS the information to be sent to his desk IMMEDIATELY.
It makes one begin to understand why the legal system seems to be derailing. If "no account clerks" (my own label for this person Dan Bickell) can play games with legitimate filings to make them "disappear", how can anyone hope to have a chance in the system unless they have a very knowledgeable attorney with the fortitude to fight tactics employed by the opposition. There shouldn't even be "opposition" in the Court system itself. The Courts are supposed to be the People's platform.
This is frightening if true, and I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Donofrios' claims. Those of us determined to have answers to the very legitimate question of confirmation of eligibility of a candidate are shaking our heads in disbelief, wondering HOW we will ever find the person who will accept the responsibility, whether in the Courts, or with another entity.
I guess we will have to keep chipping away at the system until we are finally heard, and ANSWERED.
Mairi

Obama Birth Certificate: Donofrio v. Wells: Supreme Court Clerk Danny Bickell Is Confused

Pamela Geller (h/t Bob Robbins and Larwyn) blogs about another law suit concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate. As well, Miri Green sent me a link to Leo C. Donofrio's website. Geller quotes a press release:

>"On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution."

Donofrio's case follows through the letter writing I did earlier this year. The Supreme Court's "Stay Clerk" (I wonder if they also have a "Go Clerk"), Dan Bickell, seems to contradict himself and be giving Donofrio the run around. First, Bickell told Donofrio that the stay was refused, then, upon learning that the public was aware of his (Bickell's) actions, Bickell reversed himself. Is the Supreme Court being run by thugs?

It is undoubtedly true that the election boards and secretaries of state do not police the election process. Candidates may be committing identity fraud, may not be legitimately eligible to run and may be criminals under assumed identities, and the elections boards do not know, do not want to know, and do not care. The level of elections administration in this country is dismal. The same is true of the Federal Elections Commission, which should be abolished. Sadly, though, Danny Bickell and the Supreme Court that he seems to represent is indifferent to maladministration of elections in the United States, preferring to stick its nose into questions about the morality of the death penalty based on elitist moralism picked up in dogmatic, ideological classwork the justices learned in pissant-left-wing first year law classes.

In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be interested in using state violence to enforce third rate, left-wing philosophy but it doesn't seem interested in enforcing the law.

The press release that Pamela Geller quotes concludes:

"While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice."

On his website Donofrio indicates that he is now appealing the New Jersey Court's decision in his case. On his website, Mr. Donofrio accuses the Supreme Court clerk of dissembling:

"True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief."

He argues:

"Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief."

He adds:

"I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law."

After several citizens called the Supreme Court to complain about Bickell's behavior, Bickell reversed himself. Several hours after Donofrio's call to arms, he wrote:

"Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public...

"1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.

"2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification...Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage...

...Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.

Donofrio concludes:

THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

United States Supreme Court

One First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------

Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED

>Dear Citizens of the United States of America,

>I need your help and the US needs your help.

>My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.

>For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case...

>It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.

>The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.

>I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court...

>This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.

>Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:

>The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.

--------------------------------

>Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio