|
An
important point of procedure, or ‘Juris Prudence’ here, that would be very
easy for DWM(David Wynn Miller - Parce Deim Master) to take before the
American People and then be submitted to Congress and or,the Judiciary System
for affirmative action,
Immediately , if not sooner, the case for crimes on any side of the of the
fence he straddles as POTUS ,or errant corporate citizen -HIS COME UPPIN TIME
HAS COME ! DWM could help us smack down this very bad,and evil, puppet of The
NWO Bankster Cartel .
SO LET ME PUT THIS ON THE TABLE FOR FURTHER DISPOSITION , BY ALL PARTIES. AND
MAY I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
Obama’s
Oval OfficeMy recent column, Why Obama Can’t be Impeached, brought an
avalanche of email with many questions. In particular, someone wanted to know
if hypothetically, Barry Soetoro aka Obama, committed treason by selling
sensitive military secrets, could he be charged with treason? The putative
president is a civilian and can be indicted by a federal grand jury. If
enough evidence exists, he could be tried and convicted. But, as someone who
has usurped the office of the president, he cannot be impeached for the same
crime since he does not legally occupy the office.
He
clearly is guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. §1343, the federal wire fraud
statute, which typically carries a penalty of at least 20 years. As a
civilian, he can be indicted and tried in federal court.
Question
about the oath of office ceremony. As Barry clearly has known all along he
was never eligible, when he took the oath of office, he committed perjury –
twice. We can all remember, there was a second ’swearing in’ due to Chief
Justice John Robert’s tripping over his tongue. But, was there more to it?
At
the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the putative president
paid a ‘protocol’ visit to the Supreme Court, January 14, 2009. The visit was
private behind closed doors with no media. At that time, Roberts had cases on
the docket where Obama was the defendant or was the subject of pending
litigation.
On a
Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private.
Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices
after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! Also pending at the
time was the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23,
2009. Chief Justice Roberts sat in that private meeting to discuss whether
the case should go to oral arguments; it did not. Does anyone see major
conflict of interest here?
Even
if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate. Roberts
should have notified the “president elect” that under the circumstances, he
would not be able to meet with him, period. There must be zero appearance of
any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme
Court.
The
number one goal in seeing the putative president removed from office is that
his “presidency” not be legitimized. Impeaching him would do just that. Any
investigation of Barry’s crimes would have to go through the U.S. Department
of Justice. A conundrum to be sure. If the usurper is removed because he is
clearly ineligible, so goes Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, every
other judicial appointment now confirmed and every bill he has signed into
‘law’.
The
Outlaw Congress accepted the electoral college vote instead of invoking House
rules and initiating an investigation. Not one of the 535 members stood up
for the U.S. Constitution that day. They (including Michelle Bachmann and Ron
Paul) are responsible for this severe constitutional crisis that at some
point will reach critical mass.
Is
there any other way the putative president could be removed from office other
than a quo warranto action? Mario Apuzzo, is an attorney who has been
representing plaintiffs in cases involving the putative president’s
ineligibility. Mario has raised the issue of standing, a judicial
hallucination, in a case, Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 2011 [emphasis mine]:
“Applying
the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama’s eligibility, one would have
to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed
by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I,
Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of
the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This
requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine.
One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute, with the
President’s action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President
must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5,
which contains the “natural born Citizen” clause. Then one would argue that
the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President
for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is
not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the
“natural born Citizen” clause…”
Dr.
Edwin Vieira raised this very remedy way back in Dec. 2008:
“For
a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge
Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter
of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as
Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal
prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will
enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common
Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they
“cling.”
“For
example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the
Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article
I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will
undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no
statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which
passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to
the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a
Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being
constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter
nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II,
Section 1, 4]
“Plainly,
a criminal trial arising under a supposed law of the United States is a
“Case” to which “the judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend”; and
the defense as well will raise a specific issue “arising under th[e]
Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.” [Article III, Section 2,
Clause 1] The defendant will be suffering serious “injury in fact:” namely, a
criminal indictment and a compulsory trial, with the possibility of a
conviction, imprisonment, and, if the infraction is called a “felony,” the
forfeiture of many civil rights even after his release from incarceration.
The prosecutor on one side and the defendant on the other will be adversaries
espousing diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions—so the “Case”
cannot be deemed in any way collusive. The purported statute’s invalidity by
virtue of its legal nonexistence will be “ripe” for decision, because the
statute is the basis for the indictment, and its invalidity the foundation of
the defense to the charge. And, unless and until the prosecutor importunes
the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, the issue of the putative
statute’s legal nonexistence and inapplicability to the defendant will be
anything but moot.”
Obama/Soetoro’s
legal day of reckoning is coming and his downfall could come by his own
signature.
|
