Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Thomas More Society Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Autocam’s Obamacare Case

KENTWOOD, Mich., Oct. 15, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, joined forces with Catholic Vote Legal Defense Fund and a Michigan law firm, to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent decision, denying the claims of Autocam, an international automotive manufacturer, and its owners, that Obamacare’s so-called “HHS mandate” abridges their federal constitutional and statutory rights to the free exercise of their religious faith as well as other legal rights. John Kennedy, CEO of Michigan-based family-owned company, Autocam, joined the company as well as its other family owners to urge the Justices to rule that the government has no right to require that Autocam purchase group insurance coverage, providing its employees with morally objectionable contraceptives, including abortifacients (e.g., the so-called abortion pill, Plan B, and “Ella”), and sterilization.

Kennedy and his children, Paul, John, Margaret, and Thomas Kennedy, all faithfully embrace the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that contraception, abortion, and sterilization are serious wrongs. The HHS mandate, therefore, forces these petitioners to flout their deeply held religious convictions and operate their company in a manner that they sincerely hold to constitute grave wrongdoing.

Prior to the government’s implementation of the HHS mandate, Autocam had specifically designed a health insurance plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan to exclude contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortion-inducing drugs, in full accord and harmony with its owners’ profound religious beliefs.

“Forcing citizens to violate their conscientious religious beliefs makes a mockery of the very notion of religious freedom,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “This cannot be tolerated in a society that professes to honor fundamental civil liberties.” Even apart from the constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and free speech, the company and its owners are also protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, absent a compelling interest for doing so and then only by resort to the least burdensome means. But the petitioners for Supreme Court review contend that providing insurance for birth control or other products or services that are widely available and affordable hardly qualifies as a compelling interest, and that even if that interest were deemed compelling, the government could have opted to use other means — such as providing free contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilizations free of charge, or subsidizing their cheap and easy accessibility for all those desiring them, without burdening or curtailing anybody else’s religious liberties.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that conducting business for profit is somehow wholly divorced from the religious beliefs of the business or its owners and operators. But Brejcha criticizes this ruling as reflecting a crabbed and unduly narrow view of religion, confining it to the sacred space inside the four walls of houses of worship. He argues that that morals as well as money-making have a key role to play in the marketplace; that religious faith shapes, informs and sustains one’s morals; and that a robust or meaningful religious faith must be practiced as well as professed in every aspect of life. He concludes, “Indeed, our criminal laws demand that American businesses as well as their owners act in accord with myriad laws designed to serve the public welfare and the common good, rather than maximization of profits. People of faith must not be coerced to check their religious liberties at the door when they enter the commercial marketplace.”

Read the Autocam petition filed with the United States Supreme Court here.

German Homeschoolers Asylum: Home School Legal Defense petitions US Supreme Court

HSLDA_LogoPURCELLVILLE, Va., Oct. 10, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is filing a petition with the United States Supreme Court to hear Romeike v. Holder, the German homeschooling asylum case.

In April 2013, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the Obama Administration’s revocation of asylum granted to the family in 2010.

The original immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman, granted the Romeike family asylum on January 26, 2010, under the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) because Germany’s national policy of suppressing homeschooling violated their religious faith and because German authorities were improperly motivated to suppress homeschoolers as a social group.

In its ruling against the Romeikes, the Sixth Circuit rejected the judge’s findings, stating that Germany’s harsh treatment of homeschoolers did not amount to persecution and that the German authorities were not motivated by an improper purpose.

HSLDA Chairman and principal author of the petition, Michael Farris, said that the Court should intervene for the sake of justice.

“The United States should be a place of asylum for those who are persecuted because of their decision to follow their core religious beliefs,” he said.  “Parents, not the government, decide first how children are educated. Germany’s notorious persecution of families who homeschool violates their own obligations to uphold human rights standards and must end.”

Farris argues that there is a clear split in the treatment of human rights standards among federal circuits and that there is confusion among the circuits about how to determine when a law that applies to everyone and doesn’t appear discriminatory can still be used to persecute certain groups.

“In virtually all other circuits,” Farris said, “the Romeikes’ chances of success would have been decisively higher. But in this case, the Sixth Circuit created a new standard that dramatically departs from its own, as well as the Supreme Court’s, jurisprudence in U.S. asylum law. The Supreme Court needs to settle this area of law.”

This case is important to HSLDA’s mission to advance freedom for persecuted homeschoolers, said Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly.

“Germany’s clear violations of human rights standards in the area of homeschooling have been going on for over a decade,” he said. “German authorities recently seized the Wunderlich children and are prosecuting others — seeking outrageous jail terms — just because of homeschooling. Germany’s repression of homeschooling freedom is infecting other European nations and our country should send a message that the United States will provide a refuge for victims of persecution even from ostensibly free democratic countries like Germany.”

Without minimizing the reality of physical persecution and other types of human rights violations in other countries, HSLDA argues that the imposition of crushing fines, seizure of children, and disproportionate criminal penalties over homeschooling amount to persecution. The brief argues that the German Supreme Court’s explicit approval for unequal treatment of homeschoolers for religious or philosophical reasons clearly violates human rights standards that the United States must recognize.

The petition places considerable reliance on the statements of the highest courts in Germany that explain that the purpose of the repression of homeschoolers was to prevent “religious and philosophical minorities” from developing into “parallel societies.”

Human rights standards make it plain that, although a nation may require compulsory attendance and may impose reasonable rules related to educational quality, no nation my exercise philosophical control over a child’s education contrary to the parent’s beliefs. “These human rights protections were written in response to Germany’s practices in the Nazi era,” Farris added. “It is impossible to distinguish the German desire for philosophical conformity today from that of the 1930s. Children do not belong to any government in any decade.”

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

Obama Show PapersA significant proportion of the US population feels marginalized and suffers from perceived widespread disrespect. Their desires are discounted and in some instances actively discouraged by state, federal and local government. Families are either split or prevented from coming together, which results in children who are denied the benefits of a two–parent family. Circumstances beyond the control of these individuals have put them in the shadows, outside the mainstream of American society and at the mercy of an often cruel and heartless public.

And that’s why Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Public Policy Center have both come out in support of homosexual marriage. As Daly said in an interview with Christianity Today, “What are the solutions to help get these families together, get them in a lawful state, one that can be recognized, and then move forward? I think that is a healthy situation for the country. Let’s get behind this, not play politics with it left or right and not fearmonger with it. These are people that need dignity. Even though in some cases they’ve broken the law, there’s always that heartfelt story out there where you just tear up looking at what they’re facing now. We need to do what’s humane.”

No wait. That’s the quote Daly used in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. As of the time this post was written Focus and the Southern Baptists still oppose homosexual marriage. But can someone point out to me why their reasoning on illegal aliens doesn’t apply to homosexuals, too? Both groups have been in an unlawful relationship for a number of years and they want to either escape worldly consequences in one case and Biblical responsibility in the other.

I know the Bible says welcome the stranger and not welcome the sodomite, but when you base your theology on feelings instead of Truth, there is no difference in the two situations. A plain reading of the Bible shows marriage is one man to one woman and homosexuality is prohibited — occasionally by fire and brimstone. And strangers are to be welcomed as individuals by individuals, but nowhere does it say stealth invasions in violation of the law are to be encouraged. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible a law breaker or sinner is rewarded for his or her transgression?

Or for that matter, where people are encouraged to emulate a class of law breakers in the future?

The situation is simply not there. Illegals aren’t mentioned by name in either testament, but if we can’t apply observations or analogous situations from the Bible to modern life, then the book is dead and useless.

Look at how similar both situations are. Both population groups feel put upon. Homosexuals and illegals want to come out of the shadows and gain the stamp of approval from government and society at large: A marriage license in one case and documentos de ciudadanía in the other.

If Daly and my own Southern Baptist governing body are to be consistent, then they have to either support both or oppose both.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision that branded people like me who oppose the perversion of God’s institution of marriage as hate–filled bigots, Daly and Focus helped to produce an e–book that contained five questions and answers about same sex marriage that outlined their opposition. The irony is the same questions and answers apply to illegal aliens, but they support legalizing them.

Here are the questions and answers with the marriage–related in regular text and the illegal–related in boldface.

1. Why does marriage matter to the government? Why do borders matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage ensures the well-being of children…Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Borders protect citizens from the incursions of lawbreakers great and small and it makes sure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship go to people who have earned it. Defending the borders is one of the principle responsibilities of government.

2. What are the consequences of redefining marriage? What are the consequences of redefining citizenship?

Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science-including very recent and robust studies-show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Redefining marriage would further separate marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining citizenship would hurt the rule of law. Separating citizenship from the responsibility to obey the law only encourages future disrespect for the law and future illegal immigration. Ideally law–abiding individuals make better citizens.

3. Why do you want to interfere with love? Why can’t we just live and let live? Why do you want to interfere with ambition?

Marriage laws don’t ban anything; they define marriage. Immigration law doesn’t ban ambition, it only defines where one is allowed to be ambitious.

4. Isn’t denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage? Aren’t immigration law supporters just using the law as an excuse for bigotry?

No. Racism kept the races apart, and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two sexes, and that is a good thing. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. No. Immigration law is color–blind, but it cannot be geography–blind. The fact that most illegal border crossers come from countries adjacent to the US does not make the enforcement of the law biased, no more than spraying for mosquitoes means you oppose flying.

5. Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether? Why doesn’t government get out of the employment verification business altogether?

Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life…A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that, between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage. A good job is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Illegal immigrants are exploited by employers and compete unfairly with low–income workers. Americans would be happy to do the work now taken by illegals if the pay rates were not distorted and artificially depressed by law–breakers. Employers who circumvent the market and rig the system against the people who need the jobs the most, create unemployment which increases stress on families and marriages.

There is no intellectual consistency in Daly’s or the SBC’s position on illegal immigration and homosexual marriage. Daly contends, “When you look at it, the immigration issue is not just a legal issue. We respect what needs to be done there and hopefully we can strengthen laws, enforce laws and do all the things that we need to do in that way, because it’s important for a country to establish its borders and maintain its borders. But when you look at the family impact now and the stories we’ve received over the past year or two, it’s pretty tragic what’s occurring.”

Illegal immigration breaks at least three of the Ten Commandments. Illegals often steal the identity of citizens to get papers. They lie about their status in the country. And the motivation that brought them here in the first place was coveting a lifestyle they didn’t have.

And what’s occurring is all self–induced. Would Daly advocate keeping a drug addict supplied with heroin so he won’t feel compelled to steal and possibly break up his family if he’s sent to jail? How about telling a wife to put up with infidelity if it keeps the family together and the children aren’t upset?

Daly and the SBC are busy undermining their credibility and authority. It’s a shame. I expected better.

You No-Longer Have State’s Rights! You Have Government-Provided Allowances

chained 

 

Whether or not everyone agrees with or supports same-sex marriage is beside the point when individual state’s are being ripped from the people and states.

What is most important today is our government—federal, as well as state and local. It has overreached into our Fourth Amendment rights by invading our homes and lives to redefine us, now government has decided it has full rights to redefine all of our 10th Amendment states.    

Congratulations, you no longer have State’s Rights, you have government-provided allowances!

Whether or not Americans—gay or straight—continue to have 10 Amendment Rights, or anything written and singed into the Bill of Rights, should be of great concern to all. Facts are facts: We Americans have handed over our lives to the government that tells us it is better capable of determining our lives, life-styles, religion, how we speak, act, think, talk, spend our money, whether or not we can conduct businesses without government regulation and control, and so forth.

We allow the government to convince us that the Supreme Court is a superlative entity so infallible; it is the second coming of Christ in nine black robes–Judicial Supremacy.

Don’t bother trying to find that phrase in the Constitution. The supreme Court invented it in 1958 with the Cooper v. Aaron case: “[T]he Supreme Court for the first time, made the sweeping assertion that ‘The federal judiciary is supreme in exposition of the law of the Constitution.'”  And there’s  “no mention of the power of judicial review in the Constitution,” because the Founders did not want the Supreme Court to be “supreme in the exposition of laws of the Constitution.” The court upholds the law, but they are not the lawmakers:

judicial power was to decide cases according to law. The judicial power was given to the federal courts. And that Article VI tells you when you want to find out what the law is, where to go. And the Constitution is there.

 

But Americans took the bait, allowing the Supreme Court and Federal Government to define our lives and how we should live.

For some bizarre reason, many Americans enjoy being shackled to a government ordered society that strips people of all free will.

Gov Screws You

The latest Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by the sending of Proposition 8 back to California, where it technically belongs.

You’ll have to excuse me, I foolishly assume that California voters, who voted against same sex marriage in their state, have rights to vote freely for laws and policies they want and do not want in their individual state, which has nothing to do with the other 49 individual states.  

Apparently I’ve been misinterpreting the 10th Amendment which states “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice “to the people,” who no longer have a say concerning their individual states and lives. Activists must decide, because the Federal Government has made activists the final arbiters of the Constitution’s laws.

Some individuals, gay and straight, do not agree with same sex marriage. Some of those individuals do not agree with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.  Many voters disagree with single motherhood. Whatever one’s social views, shouldn’t individuals have rights to express those beliefs and opinions without the Federal Government invading states and mandating government judgment upon the people?

Not according to the government. You see, if people think and act through self-determination, they understand every person is a God-created being with free thought and will. Free-thinking people will in fact determine the truth that lie within the Constitution and understand their rights. When that happens, as in 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence, all hell breaks loose and government loses its grip of control, while people gain liberty.

That cannot be allowed in a country where government elites wish to rewrite liberty in the government’s image!

Look what former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Professor Steven Markham of Hillsdale College says concerning activists rewriting the Constitution and Amendments:

Proponents of a ‘21st century constitution’ or ‘living constitution’ aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

 

This week’s Supreme Court rulings are not truly a gay-straight issue, rather a state-by-state’s rights issue being abused in order to rip liberty from every individual’s hands, making people subjects of Washington politicians seeking the gay vote to keep politicians in power in case the black and single female poverty vote ever fails to continue its magical spell of oppression for personal power.

If gays really think the Federal Government desiresautonomy for individual, they are kidding themselves. Gay Americans are the latest propaganda means used by greedy politicians and leftist activists seeking further erosion of the 10th Amendment for political self-gain.

Markham notes that

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a ‘perpetual censor’ of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism. Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

 

Unlimited rights not in the Constitution are already pushed for power.

The Federal government has poverty votes generating more black poverty via racism. Where’s the 10th Amendment right to not have government tell a particular race of human beings how and where to live because of race and skin color? It’s there, but government convinced black Americans that slavery incurred black poverty and teen pregnancy and government running black lives is the only way to become emancipated.  

Darn Abe Lincoln for not signing that Emancipation Bill!

Don’t forget the War On Women: Single women were convinced if they don’t vote Democrat, they will lose their breasts to cancer! Suddenly free birth control means you receive already performed mammograms in America where legalized abortion is not legal enough.

Quick Note: Even if Roe V Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in Democrat controlled states, especially Massachusetts where Democrat politicians do the over-crowded planet a favor by drowning the pregnant woman with the baby.

Then there’s the Amnesty Bill: Shock! Illegal aliens are forbidden to live in a country they illegally entered. That’s because white Republicans hate immigration and the only way immigrants can enter America is illegally.

But that’s not enough to abolish the 10th Amendment and your stat’s rights.

Progressive leftist activists have been clamoring to place gay Americans in the Emancipation Proclamation. Gays have been enslaved! Gays are forbidden same-sex marriage! The last time I checked marriage is not a Constitutional Amendment; marriage is not a federally mandated rule of law, rather state-by-state laws: Couples must go to their local town hall to obtain marriage licenses. But progressive activists are determined that marriage become a Federal Government law providing marriage rights.

Look out America! Don’t think the day can’t come when D.C. mandates marriage and Americans beg D.C. for marriage licenses. Imagine being told:  “Sorry, you can’t get married if the government does not have a marriage equality quota of gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim (which will no doubt demand Sharia Law be pushed into a Constitutional amendment) polygamy marriages (don’t assume polygamists are not plotting to get their marriages federally legalized), etc.

It could happen in America with a progressive government that signed off on the Constitution.

We are not looking ahead, but allowing government to mandate our lives, while destroying the Constitution and our rights.

Prop 8 Ruling Avoided: Supreme Court clears the path for gay marriage in California

Image via LA Times

Image via LA Times

The Supreme Court has ruled that California citizens who want to uphold the gay marriage ban do not have the right to appeal the lower court rulings striking down the ban.

Proposition 8 was passed by the voters of California in 2008, but last year, the federal court of appeals deemed it unconstitutional.

This 5-4 decision is another win for gay marriage in America.

Kagan ’09: ‘There is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage’

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane.  It’s 2009, and Elena Kagan is answering questions during her confirmation hearing for the position of Solicitor General within the Obama administration. According to William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who posted this piece on March 25, this is what she had to say about gay marriage:

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

Gay Rights Debate Reaches the Supreme Court

by Jeremy Griffith

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC's normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.

SCOTUS Hearing on Obama Eligibility: 14 Congressman served subpoenas

This is the latest Press Release From Orly Taitz regarding the her lawsuit on Barack Obama’s eligibility that is before the Supreme Court.

Press Release: 14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court.

orly_taitz_sitting

 

14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary Committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court. Most of the congressmen served are members of the Judiciary committee. Most of them are attorneys, former prosecutors and judges. Proof of service on every Congressman is being posted on orlytaitzesq.com today and tomorrow. Copies are being sent by certified mail to the US Attorneys’ office-Department of Justice and are being filed with the presiding Judge Morrison C. England. Donations to cover expenses are greatly appreciated. Law abiding U.S. citizens have a right to contact their congressmen and demand that they comply with subpoenas expeditiously.

More information and posted proofs of service on OrlyTaitzESQ.com

Donations can be made through paypal on orlytaitzesq.com or by mailing to

Defend our Freedoms Foundation

c/o Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

[email protected]


attachment_id=399458″ rel=”attachment wp-att-399458″>URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

On 12.12.2012 a legal action Grinols, Odden, Judd, Noonen and MacLaren v Electoral College, President of the Senate, Congress, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry ) Soetoro, aka Barack Barry Soebarkah, Governor of California and Secretary of State of California was filed by several Presidential electors and minor presidential candidates. The case number is 12-cv-02997 Presiding Judge Morrison C. England Eastern District of California. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy U.S. Attorney Edward Olsen made an appearance as attorneys representing U.S. Congress, President of the Senate, Electoral College and Barack Obama. A motion for a TRO (temporary restraining order ) was filed by the plaintiffs to enjoin the certification of the electoral votes for Obama and enjoin taking of the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of the fact that he is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never signed to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS, due to the fact that in his mother’s passport he is listed under a different last name, Soebarkah, due to the fact that multiple experts and members of law enforcement found his Selective Service application and long form and short form birth certificates to be computer generated forgeries and a number of other reasons. U.S. attorneys Wagner and Olsen filed an opposition to the TRO. Their opposition means that each and every US congressman, U.S. Senator, each and every Elector; all 435 US representatives, all 100 Senators, all 538 Presidential Electors oppose adjudication on the merits of above issues and do not want to get answers to the questions essential to the U.S. National security prior to the inauguration. It came to the attention of the plaintiffs that a number of Defendants actually shared the concerns of the plaintiffs and did not know that the US attorneys represented them and opposed the motion for TRO. You are requested to fill out the questioner below and clarify whether you were aware of the facts and evidence provided with the complaint and that you authorized Wagner and Olsen to oppose the TRO.

Questions Initialyes Initialno
1. I was notified that U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy Attorney General Edward Olsen(hereinafter Wagner and Olsen) are representing me in Grinols et al v Electoral College et al12-cv-02997 Eastern District of California, presiding Chief Judge Morrison C. England(Attorney for Plaintiffs Orly Taitz, 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] )
2. I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate, long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro aka Barack (Barry) obama Soebarkah and evidence of fraudulent use by him of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama
3. Wagner and Olsen forwarded to me a sworn affidavit of the retired Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Coast Guard and former special agent for the Department of Homeland Security Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, where Coffman states under the penalty of perjury that the alleged application for Selective Service by Barack Obama is an altered document
4. I was given by Wagner and Olsen the TRO motion, where it is explained that a male who did not register with the Selective Service and who does not have a valid registration for the Selective Service (not an altered or forged one, but a valid one) is disqualified from holding any position within the Executive branch of the United States government pursuant to 5 USC § 3328.
5. I am aware that as part of their complaint plaintiffs provided 2009 tax returns for Barack Obama, which show him using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, even though Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and according to E-verify and SSNVS this number was never assigned to Obama
6. I have read sworn affidavits of Sheriff of Maricopa County Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Mike Zullo, Retired Senior Deportation officer John Sampson, licensed Investigator Susan Daniels attesting to evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service Certificate and Social Security card
7. I viewed the video tape of the press conference by Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo, as well as sworn witness testimony of witnesses Susan Daniels, Linda Jordan, Douglas Vogt, Felicito Papa attesting to evidence of fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs
8. I read the passport records of deceased Stanley Ann Dunham, the mother of Barack Obama, obtained under Freedom of Information Act, included with the complaint, showing Obama listed under the last name Soebarkah in his mother’s passport records. I understand that one has to be sworn in under a correct legal name.
9. I read the sworn affidavit of the assistant clerk of the office of the Registrar of Hawaii Timothy Adams stating that it was a common knowledge in the office of the Registrar of Hawaii that there is no birth certificate for Obama in any hospital in Hawaii
10. I reviewed the biography of Barack Obama submitted by Barack Obama to his publisher Acton-Dystel in 1991 and kept on the official web site of Acton Dystel, where Obama stated that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. I understand that this biography was removed from the official web site of the publisher in 2007 when Obama decided to run for the U.S. President and needed to be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen
11. I understand that Obama’s alleged selective service certificate contains a two digit year stamp “80″, while for over a hundred years all U.S. stamps have a four digit year, such as “”1980″
12. I understand that Obama’s alleged copy of his long form birth certificate contains letters of different shapes and different sizes, which is impossible when the documents is created with a type writer.
13. I understand that not one single judge or jury or forensic document expert was allowed to see the original birth certificate for Obama, the original application for the Selective Service and the original application for the Connecticut Social Security number used by Barack Obama
14. I understand that in his School registration in Indonesia in 1967 Barack Obama is listed as a citizen of Indonesia. I understand that there is no record of him changing his citizenship after returning to the U.S. from Indonesia and relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship. I understand that even if Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah were to change his citizenship upon his return from Indonesia, he would be naturalized and not natural born citizen as required for the position of the U.S. President according to article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
15. I understand that in his school registration in Indonesia Barack Obama is listed under the last name of his step father Soetoro. I understand that there is no record of Obama ever changing his name from Soetoro to Obama
16. With full knowledge of above facts I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a temporary stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office of the U.S. President by Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack(Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry ) Obama Soebarkah pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate, his long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate, evidence of fraudulent use of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama and other related issues

Signed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Representative/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Senator/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Presidential elector/state

____________________________________________________________________________________

President of the Senate Joseph Biden

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dated

Please, forward the signed form to the Attorney for the Plaintiffs

Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] at your earliest convenience. Due to the great importance to the National security answers are requested to be sent immediately by fax or e-mail and followed up by sending a certified copy by mail

Update: SCOTUS never commented on the merits of Obama’s eligibility case

supreme_courtThis is an update from Dr. Orly Taitz, on the Supreme Court decision handed down on the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility case on Tuesday, February 19, 2013.

 

My conversation with Mr. Dennison from SCOTUS blog

I talked to Mr. Dennison, writer of the SCOTUS blog. I called his cell number 301-512-4731.

He was correct in stating that SCOTUS only denied the STAY as Obama was already sworn in, SCOTUS never commented on the merits of the case, never stated that Obama’s papers are valid.

I asked, why did they sent 5 packets back. He said that they only need the decision of 4 justices to go to the next stage of oral argument. I responded that this looks even more corrupt and treasonous, it means that they sent the remaining packets to 4 liberal justices and 5 conservative justices never saw the papers. He stated that if I feel that the high treason was committed, I should file a complaint with the Justice department. I responded that the Justice department is complicit. I forwarded all the info to Holder and he never responded. I told him that in NAZI Germany they also had a Justice Department, Supreme Court, Parliament and judges, none of whom found one single action by Adolf Hitler to be unconstitutional and that is what we have now in the U.S. He said that he knows, that he is old enough to know what happened in Germany, but he can’t talk further.

SCOTUS Employees Caught withholding legal documents from Supreme Court Justices

supreme_court

PRESS RELEASE

Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Law offices of  Orly taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

[email protected]

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681

 

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013   Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back,  as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin.  She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013 in a conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and Keith Judd  against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination  due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. Most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution” were removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and  experts showing that Barack Obama is:

  1. A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As  a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
  2.  Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham,  deceased mother   of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for removal as listed in the passport,  is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport  when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
  3. Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits  from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document.  Registrar of the State of Hawaii and Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.

Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is  COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this   supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and  former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a forgery.

Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the Special investigations of the US Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged application for the selective service is a forgery. According to  5 USC § 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the selective service.

(a)An individual—

(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, as such Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.

 

  1. 4.     Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.

 315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES

Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court.     Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public,  media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as

Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an

application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same

employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone thatthere is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.   Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

 

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press Release via Orly Taitz, Esq.

H/T Red Flag News

Justice Alito Stresses Federalism As Refuge from Usurpatory Government

 

With the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional government in doubt, it’s always reassuring to hear from the voices who espouse those views.  I’m an ardent optimist.  I have faith that the electorate will correct their decisions made on Nov. 6, and constrain this president’s pernicious agenda of implementing a hyper-regulatory progressive state.  The Federalist Society’s 30th Anniversary Gala last Thursday night featured Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who detailed how the legal opinions of those on the left threaten America’s constitutional bedrock: federalism.

To put it simplistically, the federal government is supreme in its sphere, as is the state government in their defined area.  There is overlap – and confusion.  However, Alito gave a robust defense of the doctrine.  While it’s seen better days, federalism in Alito’s view, promotes energetic and productive competition, protects liberty, and encourages experimentation.  He also reiterated that you do not have to buy the various treatises on constitutional law that run over a thousand pages –  and cost a considerable amount of money – to understand that congressional power is limited.  You just have to read the plain text of the U.S. Constitution to understand that point.

He then went on to detail various cases that have threatened this principle of federalism.  From the government being able to attach GPS monitors surreptitiously to your vehicles and calling it a search under the Fourth Amendment to facing the regulatory nightmare of having wetlands being designated in one’s backyard, the fight to keep the Madisonian experiment in limited government, and the principles of federalism un-imbrued continues with fragility.

We have four liberals, four conservatives, with Justice Alito included, and moderate Justice Kennedy on the bench, which isn’t a firm legal defense of the principles conservatives wish to see blemished.  And more fights will come.  One fight in particular that was highly salient – which was described more in depth by Justice Alito, concerned Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

In this case, Cheryl Perich was hired by the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School, taught some lessons, contracted narcolepsy, took a leave of absence, and was subsequently replaced.  She sued under the American with Disabilities Act, however, the ministerial exception gave more latitude to religious institution in terms of hiring and firing processes.  The Court ruled unanimously that such an exception applied here, and therefore, discrimination lawsuits brought against religious institutions aren’t valid.

Well, The New York Times, to no one’s surprise, didn’t take too kindly to the decision.  But, the argument for Perich and The New York Times is disturbing.  Should courts be allowed to review cases, and make decisions based on legal and religious doctrines?  Is it up to a judge and jury to decide a termination?  If accepted, government would have been able to go deep into the dynamics of religious institutions, and the doctrines that guide them.  That’s gross overreach.For jurists to decide cases based solely on church doctrine, if this argument were accepted by the Court, and not law is insane.  As Justice Alito said at the dinner, it’s a “chilling” foray into this plausible episode of government intrusion.

This nation proudly and robustly defends the right to free speech enshrined in our First Amendment.  However, this case, and Citizens United, shows how some people on the left will try to alter the Constitution to fit their model on how they feel government should operate – or feel whole again.  Citizens United, the more controversial of the two cases, was boiled down to the government making the case the speech articulated or disseminated by the privileged few is protected, but isn’t for other parties in the country.  That’s perverse, and it doesn’t stop there.

Justice Alito concluded with a warning about the alternate vision we’re fighting against in the judiciary.  It’s a vision where federalism offers no refuge.  It’s an insufferable progressive state that stomps on religious institutions and freedoms.  It’s a government that can willingly seize private property.  Justice Alito vociferously made the case that the U.S. Constitution wasn’t meant to be malleable with a dependent, entitled society.  It was designed for the citizens operating within a socioeconomic fabric that stressed freedom and independence.  This document embeds certain rights, so that they can’t be easily removed from the political landscape.  Therefore, as Justice Alito alluded to, it’s integral to the survival of our freedom, and our commitment to be an open and prosperous society.

 

Sen. Mike Lee and Senator-Elect Ted Cruz: ‘Our Ideas Work, Their Ideas Don’t’

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator-Elect Ted Cruz (R-TX) were adamant about two things when they addressed The Federalist Society’s discussion about constitutional law and the Supreme Court yesterday: “our [conservative] ideas work, their [ liberal] ideas don’t.”  Furthermore, our ideas have been winning the argument, which explains why law schools are limiting the amount of speakers – invited by Federalist Society – chapters that can come and articulate such views across the country.  Both men viewed that we must return to the government our Founders envisioned, and must guard against the progressive regulatory state advocated by our adversaries in Congress.  With the re-election of Barack Obama and the full implementation of Obamacare – the stakes couldn’t be any higher to keep the Madisonian experiment alive.

Sen. Lee first remarked about his election to the U.S. Senate in 2010, after beating incumbent Republican Bob Bennett at the state party convention.  Then, he went into rather humorous anecdotes about how security didn’t recognize him as a senator for the longest time during his first session in Congress.  However, he looked forward to two events this year that he thought would transform government, and make it more palatable to the Founder’s vision.

The first event was on June 28, the day of the Obamacare decision, which he received – along with most conservatives – warmly at first.  The court was articulating a position defining limits on the Commerce Clause – making this the third time in the last seventy-five years where the Supreme Court has done so.   However, as the reading of the opinion continued, more wind was blowing in liberal sails, as the senator described it.  The Court rewrote the law.  To make a long story short, the penalty was constitutional under the taxing authority, which was a position that wasn’t argued by the government.  Concerning the Medicaid expansion provisions, the Court ruled that the government had unjustly coerced states into accepting stipulations on the program’s funding, and that the Secretary for Health and Human Services cannot cut off the revenue stream – which funds the program – to states who refuse to expand coverage. In all, it was a limited purpose victory.  The second event was on November 6, which we know did not turn out well for conservatives.

Sen. Lee agreed that we won the argument for a limited proposal victory, but we also lost a lot too.  It showed that the Court can rewrite laws, and we lost the opportunity to write laws of our own choosing.  The checks on Congressional power was stipulated by judiciary and political restraint.  The judicial restraint has been compromised.  They seem, as Senator Lee put it, “unwilling” to exercise that check on power.  Second, the political check is rendered useless since Congress can pass unconstitutional laws, but if the Supreme Court can rewrite it – then what’s the purpose of that check on government power.

Sen. Lee believes that the Court acted in a manner where everyone got a little of what they wanted – but ended up hurting the American people as a result. Nevertheless, he feels that America’s best days are ahead.

Senator-Elect Ted Cruz also reiterated anecdotes on the campaign trail.  His win is almost a miracle.  He was polling sub 5%, and within the margin of error when he first began.  This highlights the trials and tribulations of any statewide campaign, especially one where you’re outspent three to one in a $ 50 million dollar primary, as in the case of Cruz, which is somewhat of a well-known characteristic within political circles.  It can be nasty, and Cruz’s opponent, David Dewhurst, dished out $35 million dollars in attack ads – but failed to clinch the nomination.  Why? He didn’t have the grassroots infrastructure needed to win.  This is the way politics should be decided, according to Senator-Elect Cruz.

Cruz is a good friend of Sen. Mike Lee, and thanked him for his early support in the beginning of his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.  In the wake of conservatives’ devastating defeat on Nov. 6, he said we much ask ourselves what went wrong, and what does this mean for the future of conservatism?  He was steadfast in the view that what conservatives have done in politics – we must now do in the law.  First, we must win the argument, which conservatives are doing – albeit very slowly.

The Senator-Elect was amused by the fact that the media was detailing how Republicans lost in 2012 because they weren’t like Democrats.  If they had acted, like the political left, things would’ve been great.  Well, conservatives lost because we didn’t make the argument.

The president said that he inherited a bad economy, and that it was all George Bush’s fault.  This message was pervasive. However, Cruz said that President Obama forgets history.  Between 1978-79, unemployment was in double-digits, interest rates were at 22%, gas lines around the block, and the Iranian hostage crisis – which probably left then-President Jimmy Carter regretting leaving peanut farming. But, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980.  He reduced taxes, regulations, and the scope of government, which led to an economic boom.  Again, playing into the narrative of these two men being “our ideas work, their ideas don’t.”

However, there’s a reason why Obama voters believe this economy is still Bush’s fault.  Why?  Mitt Romney’s campaign team didn’t respond.  Concerning the fatuous ‘war on women,’ the Senator-Elect vociferously denied Republicans want to curb or deny contraceptives to America’s women.  He doesn’t know a single Republican who thinks that way.  He quipped that he has two daughters, and he’s glad he doesn’t have seventeen.  However, you cannot own, change, or destroy a damaging narrative, if you don’t respond. First, win the argument, then you win the election – which is what Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee plan to do in the U.S. Senate.

Supreme Court shocks life into Obamacare challenge

The emperor wears no clothes. The bloom is off the rose. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Pardon the barrage of stale metaphors, but it’s difficult to put into words the utter pasting Mitt Romney put on Barack Obama last week.

Pat Buchanan called Romney’s “the finest debate performance” in 52 years “with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980.”

Indeed, when all of CNN and MSNBC – to include Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow – hysterically admit that President Obama got smoked; he got smoked. Bad.

Liberal blogger and Obama sycophant Andrew Sullivan captured the universally shared “progressive” panic as the brutal mismatch came to a close: “How is Obama’s closing statement so f—ing sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”

For those of us who have long recognized the messianic myth that is Barack Hussein Obama, the debate was especially gratifying.

The world had fallen prey to a cartoonish hoax. This media-crafted Iron Man has proven a mere mortal, a tin man, an international embarrassment.

The jig is up.

In just 90 minutes, Mitt Romney stripped away the Iron Man costume and exposed, naked beneath, a man more closely resembling Robert Downey Jr.

Recall the image, so often seen, of a young Robert, head downcast in shame, standing before the judge to rationalize why, yet again, he’d screwed up magnificently. Last Wednesday was Barack’s turn.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Robert Downey Jr. – I’m glad he turned his life around. But he’s an actor. He reads his lines. He’s not Iron Man. And he’s not qualified to be president.

Neither is Barack Obama.

And so, lost with no teleprompter binky, and, thus, suffering a debate trouncing unparalleled in history, it would seem that the president’s not so good, very bad week couldn’t get worse.

It got worse.

Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.

An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.

In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.

You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University’s case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.

Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It’s effectively overturned. It’s like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.

This means, among other things, that people who value human life won’t be made complicit in abortion homicide on the taxpayer dime.

“Obamacare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Under the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, Obamacare will, for the first time, require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion.

“This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience. I am very pleased with the Court’s decision today,” concluded Staver.

During the debate, Mitt Romney took Obama to task over Obamacare: “I just don’t know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the – at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.”

Obama was left stuttering and stammering – sheepishly defending his grossly unaffordable, wholly unsustainable and wildly unpopular Obamacare monstrosity.

I was left encouraged.

Whether by legislative repeal, or through Liberty Counsel’s ongoing case, freedom-loving America should be confident. This freakish Frankenstein monster will, God willing, be soon laid to rest beneath the cold, clammy earth from which Democrats dug it up.

Obama’s shovel-ready debate performance was the groundbreaking.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs Executive Order Denying Public Funded Benefits to Young Illegal Immigrants

On Wednesday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered her state government agencies to deny drivers licenses and other public benefits to young illegal immigrants who obtain work permits under the new Obama Administration policy.

In the executive order, she was reaffirming the current Arizona law that denies taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issues an executive order denying public-funded benefits to young illegal immigrants

Young illegal immigrants around the country between the ages of 16-30 around the nation began applying for work permits on Wednesday under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The new federal ‘policy’ defers deportation of certain young illegal immigrants who have a high school diploma, a GED, or who have served or are currently serving in the United States Armed Services, and all applicants must not have committed certain crimes.

Jan Brewer labeled the new federal policy by Barack Obama as “backdoor amnesty” back in June when the policy was announced.

Arizona has been a leading state in fighting for the right to protect their citizens from illegal immigrants, most recently making the news with the Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned parts of the Arizona enforcement law known as SB1070 but ruled that a key provision on requiring police to ask people about their immigration status under certain circumstances can be implemented.

The Obama Administration and Eric Holder challenged the law in 2010, claiming that Arizona doesn’t constitutionally have the right to pass the law, since Immigration powers are enumerated to the federal government.

Gov. Brewer went on the Mike Broomhead show on 550 KFYI radio to discuss the executive order, listen here:

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

« Older Entries Recent Entries »