FYI – this is an Obama eligibility case in Federal District
Court in California.
Once more, a corrupt judge ignores the Constitution, multiple
legal precedents, established judicial procedures, the fundamental rights of
citizens to have their grievances heard in a court of law, truth, evidence, and
his oath of office to protect a usurper in the White House.
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:22 AM
Subject: Federal Court wipes behind with Constitution (AGAIN!)
Once
more, a corrupt judge ignores the Constitution, multiple legal precedents,
established judicial procedures, the fundamental rights of citizens to have
their grievances heard in a court of law, truth, evidence, and his oath of
office to protect a usurper in the White House.
Federal District Court
Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
“England
was one of the most dishonest Judges I have ever listened to or even read
about. It was perfectly clear that he had no desire to hear the truth nor act
upon the matter before him.”
For Immediate
Release
April
24, 2013:
from: Facebook
to: Edward C Noonan
date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:44 AM
subject: Janice Darlin: How did hearing at Federal Court go?
My Reply
from: Facebook
to: Edward C Noonan
date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:44 AM
subject: Janice Darlin: How did hearing at Federal Court go?
My Reply
Again I must report that what I witnessed yesterday was
corruption at its finest. Not a single word out of Morrison England's mouth (he
is the Chief Sludge of the US Feudal Court (3rd App)) was either (not) a lie, or at least border-lined on (not) being a lie. And, of course, we were denied
any relief and England spit us out of his mouth and wiped his behind on the
Constitution. Orly Taitz (my attorney) made a mammoth appeal for the Judge to
do his Constitutional duty and to act on the accusations that we had brought
before him. But yesterday England denied us any remedy in the matter of the
eligibility of Mr. Soetoro (aka BHO) and declared our claims complaining that
the Constitution had been sorely violated by the Secretary of State, Debra
Bowen and also of Barry Soetoro was "MOOT" in his mind, and no
citizen had "standing" to complain of any such constitutional
violations .
England was one of the most dishonest Judges I have ever
listened to or even read about. It was perfectly clear that he had no desire to
hear the truth nor act upon the matter before him.
In his public statement at the end of the bogus hearing, he
issued a stupid statement. He said, the plaintiffs SHOULD HAVE FILED A WRIT OF
MANDATE with the Sacramento Court as the Elections Code stated. England
stated that we should have filed BEFORE the election and Orly's case had been
filed AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION…and it was to prevent the CERTIFICATION OF
ELECTION for the illegal alien that now holds that office.
Little did that jackal federal judge know that I was a
plaintiff in ANOTHER case that I had filed PRIOR TO THE 2012 PRIMARY. I had
filed IN PRO PER as an ELECTOR (with 6 other electors) and had filed as a
candidate to the office of President of the United States as well. I filed a
Writ of Mandate to prevent the Secretary of State from placing Mr. Soetoro on
the California Primary Ballot until he could legitimately PROVE he was a U.S.
Citizen.
My action was based on the Election Code – Section 13314
that says:
13314. (a) (1) An
elector may seek a writ of mandate alleging that an error or omission
has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the
printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official matter,
or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall
issue only upon proof of both of the following:
(A) That the error, omission, or
neglect is in violation of this code or the Constitution.
The Sacramento Judge (Michael P. Kenny) denied me a legal
remedy, because he accepted the Secretary of State's (Debra Bowen) arguement
that she didn't have a Constitutional duty to insure the Constitution was being
followed.
England said (via gibberish-talk) that if I (as a plaintiff) had done this, then I would have STANDING. But I guess this is only if I am an ELECTOR because he said as a CA Primary PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I have no standing because I had been only on the primary ballot only in ONE STATE. But England stated that if I was only an Elector I could have filed a Writ of Mandate? Please note that there were other "Electors" on the Writ of Mandate that filed with me in February of 2012 (in Pro-per). If you are confused...so am/was I!
England said (via gibberish-talk) that if I (as a plaintiff) had done this, then I would have STANDING. But I guess this is only if I am an ELECTOR because he said as a CA Primary PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I have no standing because I had been only on the primary ballot only in ONE STATE. But England stated that if I was only an Elector I could have filed a Writ of Mandate? Please note that there were other "Electors" on the Writ of Mandate that filed with me in February of 2012 (in Pro-per). If you are confused...so am/was I!
Now let me comment on Mr. England's long rant on MOOTNESS.
He said we were MOOT… Of course anyone with any research ability can discover
that there are exceptions to MOOT cases.
Moot cases have several exceptions.
Disputes "capable of repetition, yet evading review" may be heard
even if the particular controversy is moot, as long as the same thing could
happen again to the particular party. And one example of such an exception
would be ELECTION DISPUTES.
And of course, ANY constitutional issue regarding a
violation of the Constitution can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be MOOT! The Constitution
is the Supreme Law of the land, and no ruling, no law can trump the
Constitution.
England said in the hearing yesterday that "we had
presented no witnesses and no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Soetoro."
Previously in the Feb 16th hearing he demanded that NO WITNESSES
WERE ALLOWED! Thusly, in the previous hearing he refused to hear witnesses… BUT
NOW he chided us for HAVING NO WITNESSES BROUGHT BEFORE HIM!?
Poor Orly was visibly shaken at the vast number of lies that
been vomiting forth from England's mouth. I have been waiting for her to put
something up on her webpage but nothing has been forthcoming (yet). So, I have
penned this short comment regarding yesterday's kangaroo court. I would add in
closing that the Soetoro supporters almost outnumbered the SACRAMENTO TEA PARTY
supporters that came to support Orly. There were about 10-15 Soeotobots, and
about 30-35 of us Constitutionalists.
It was a sad day for Amerika!
It was a sad day for Amerika!
See Dr. Orly Taitz comments of the bogus hearing at:
For Immediate
Release
April
24, 2013:
from: Facebook
to: Edward C Noonan
date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:44 AM
subject: Janice Darlin: How did hearing at Federal Court go?
My Reply
from: Facebook
to: Edward C Noonan
date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:44 AM
subject: Janice Darlin: How did hearing at Federal Court go?
My Reply
Again I must report that what I witnessed yesterday was
corruption at its finest. Not a single word out of Morrison England's mouth (he
is the Chief Sludge of the US Feudal Court (3rd App)) was either a
lie, or at least border-lined on being a lie. And, of course, we were denied
any relief and England spit us out of his mouth and wiped his behind on the
Constitution. Orly Taitz (my attorney) made a mammoth appeal for the Judge to
do his Constitutional duty and to act on the accusations that we had brought
before him. But yesterday England denied us any remedy in the matter of the
eligibility of Mr. Soetoro (aka BHO) and declared our claims complaining that
the Constitution had been sorely violated by the Secretary of State, Debra
Bowen and also of Barry Soetoro was "MOOT" in his mind, and no
citizen had "standing" to complain of any such constitutional
violations .
England was one of the most dishonest Judges I have ever
listened to or even read about. It was perfectly clear that he had no desire to
hear the truth nor act upon the matter before him.
In his public statement at the end of the bogus hearing, he
issued a stupid statement. He said, the plaintiffs SHOULD HAVE FILED A WRIT OF
MANDATE with the Sacramento Court as the Elections Code stated. England
stated that we should have filed BEFORE the election and Orly's case had been
filed AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION…and it was to prevent the CERTIFICATION OF
ELECTION for the illegal alien that now holds that office.
Little did that jackal federal judge know that I was a
plaintiff in ANOTHER case that I had filed PRIOR TO THE 2012 PRIMARY. I had
filed IN PRO PER as an ELECTOR (with 6 other electors) and had filed as a
candidate to the office of President of the United States as well. I filed a
Writ of Mandate to prevent the Secretary of State from placing Mr. Soetoro on
the California Primary Ballot until he could legitimately PROVE he was a U.S.
Citizen.
My action was based on the Election Code – Section 13314
that says:
13314. (a) (1) An
elector may seek a writ of mandate alleging that an error or omission
has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the
printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official matter,
or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall
issue only upon proof of both of the following:
(A) That the error, omission, or
neglect is in violation of this code or the Constitution.
The Sacramento Judge (Michael P. Kenny) denied me a legal
remedy, because he accepted the Secretary of State's (Debra Bowen) arguement
that she didn't have a Constitutional duty to insure the Constitution was being
followed.
England said (via gibberish-talk) that if I (as a plaintiff) had done this, then I would have STANDING. But I guess this is only if I am an ELECTOR because he said as a CA Primary PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I have no standing because I had been only on the primary ballot only in ONE STATE. But England stated that if I was only an Elector I could have filed a Writ of Mandate? Please note that there were other "Electors" on the Writ of Mandate that filed with me in February of 2012 (in Pro-per). If you are confused...so am/was I!
England said (via gibberish-talk) that if I (as a plaintiff) had done this, then I would have STANDING. But I guess this is only if I am an ELECTOR because he said as a CA Primary PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I have no standing because I had been only on the primary ballot only in ONE STATE. But England stated that if I was only an Elector I could have filed a Writ of Mandate? Please note that there were other "Electors" on the Writ of Mandate that filed with me in February of 2012 (in Pro-per). If you are confused...so am/was I!
Now let me comment on Mr. England's long rant on MOOTNESS.
He said we were MOOT… Of course anyone with any research ability can discover
that there are exceptions to MOOT cases.
Moot cases have several exceptions.
Disputes "capable of repetition, yet evading review" may be heard
even if the particular controversy is moot, as long as the same thing could
happen again to the particular party. And one example of such an exception
would be ELECTION DISPUTES.
And of course, ANY constitutional issue regarding a
violation of the Constitution can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be MOOT! The Constitution
is the Supreme Law of the land, and no ruling, no law can trump the
Constitution.
England said in the hearing yesterday that "we had
presented no witnesses and no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Soetoro."
Previously in the Feb 16th hearing he demanded that NO WITNESSES
WERE ALLOWED! Thusly, in the previous hearing he refused to hear witnesses… BUT
NOW he chided us for HAVING NO WITNESSES BROUGHT BEFORE HIM!?
Poor Orly was visibly shaken at the vast number of lies that
been vomiting forth from England's mouth. I have been waiting for her to put
something up on her webpage but nothing has been forthcoming (yet). So, I have
penned this short comment regarding yesterday's kangaroo court. I would add in
closing that the Soetoro supporters almost outnumbered the SACRAMENTO TEA PARTY
supporters that came to support Orly. There were about 10-15 Soeotobots, and
about 30-35 of us Constitutionalists.
It was a sad day for Amerika!
It was a sad day for Amerika!
NEW!! See Dr. Orly Taitz's comments regarding the bogus
hearing at: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=416023
(s) PLAINTIFF: Edward C. Noonan
Founder & National Committee Chairman:
American Resistance Party
Former 2006-2008 State Party Chairman - American Independent Party
2002 Winner - AIP CA Primary - Secretary of State
2006 Winner - AIP CA Primary - Governor
2010 Winner - AIP CA Primary - US Senate
2012 Winner - AIP CA Primary - US President
http://www.americanresistanceparty.org
http://americanresistanceparty.blogspot.com
4 comments:
FYI Judge England is a officer of the corporate united states defacto. He is not obligated to rule in a dejure constitutional matter as you pose. He does not recognize you as a citizen w constitutional rights. To him you are an ant and do not have any claim that is valid to bring before his court because you are subject to him not the other way around. In the dejure the govt is of for and by the people but in the defacto the govt is before the people and they are subject to it because we are corporate fictions and subject to the corporate defact we are inferior to them and so they can do whatever they wish. Obama is a corporate CEO of a foreign govt US. He is not the Preident of the USA Dejure, he doesnt follow the law he is unlawful however he is legal in his posture as corp CEO but he is deceiving the people because they think he is the Dejure Lawful Pres of the USA But in fact he is the DeFacto Legal CEO Pres office holder of the Corp US as is judge England and as such they dont have to hear any constitutional arguments
Sooooo! More Blah..blah..that's the problem!
Boy, I think the first post has it right.
On top of that, like doctors are not required to study nutrition, I would bet most of these judges/attorneys are not versed on Constitutional law. It's just not required in their curriculum. Probably it's an elective or a fictional history or something. Only a guess.
We hear of these professors that specialize in Constitutional law in the classroom. What good is that if it's not utilized in the field?
The Constitution is marginalized as some quaint historical document that does not apply to reality.
At the same time, I can't see any of these judges/attorneys being that aware of what they are doing, period. They are simply parroting what they know and it's basically mindless information and/or they rule as they are instructed/expected to rule. Many of them pre-judge every litigant
that steps into the court. I have seen it over and over again. It's like they are completely bored
with the repetition and already know how they are going to rule and just want to get through the day. They throw disabled people out of their homes. It's just horrible. They tell people that
they will give them their decision in the mail. And it's never in favor of the homeowner.
I can tell you from personal experience that even with mounds of evidence and witnesses
my cases were already decided in favor of the defendants, and attorneys were the ones who got paid.
I am so glad you said something...People still think they can fight with Constitutional Law in Admiralty Courts. This Orly Taize lady is a lawyer and still hasn't looked at the obvious. Still they refuse to listen.
Post a Comment