Showing posts with label Chief Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chief Justice. Show all posts

Sunday, February 03, 2013

You can help save America if you act NOW!

Justice John Roberts is going to review a case on Feb 15th regarding Obama’s use of a fake SS#.

The case review is real:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

We do not think Roberts will act so we are demanding that Congress take action.

Over 23,984 25,000 26,000 27,000 Letters and Emails Sent So Far.

http://www.petition2congress.com/9026/start-immediate-investigation-barack-obamas-use-forged-ids-ct-ssn/


Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Obama ballot challenge arrives in SUPREME COURT

If Justice Clarence Thomas does not grant a stay or referral to full court, Farrar v Obama will be reassigned to Chief Justice John Roberts

Press release

Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz

Farrar v Obama in front of the Supreme Court

Farrar order denying motion to quash subpoenas

Farrar corrected proposed summary of law and fact


Farrar v Obama Application for Stay of primary election votes for Barack Obama in the state of Georgia was filed and docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States and referred to Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice in charge of the 11th Circuit from which the case originated. If Justice Thomas does not grant the stay or referral to the full court, the case will be in front of the Chief Justice John Roberts.

This case was heard on January 26, 2012 in Atlanta Georgia. Attorney Orly Taitz brought 7 witnesses, among them Senior Deportation office of the Department of Homeland Security, all of whom testified that Obama’s Social Security card and Birth certificate are forged and fraudulently obtained documents. Taitz subpoenaed Obama to appear in court and produce valid identification papers. Obama filed a motion to quash the subpoenas filed by Taitz. Presiding judge Malihi ruled in favor of Taitz and ordered Obama to appear in court and produce the identification papers. Obama and his attorney Michael Jablonski were in contempt of court ordered subpoena and boycotted the hearing, claiming that Obama is being harassed. GA law requires the candidate to prove his eligibility, Obama did not provide any proof. Based on yet unknown consideration judge Malihi allowed Obama on the ballot.

DVD of the actual court argument in the case and witness sworn testimony is available through this site by paying $20 (see Donate above and indicating that this is for the DVD of GA trial). Decision by Justice Thomas is expected within 2 weeks. If no state is granted by Thomas, decision by Roberts will be 2 weeks later.

Farrar v Obama is one of several cases prosecuted by attorney Taitz, challenging Obama Tax. Other cases are in front of the Federal District judge Wingate in Mississippi, Judge Reid in Indiana, Court of Appeals in Washington DC, Federal District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles.

Motion Hearing in Taitz v Sebelius challenging Obama Tax as violating Establishment clause, Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Due Process clause of Christian and Jewish citizens due to exemptions given to religious sects and due to expected mass exemptions of Muslim citizens, will be on August 10, 9:30 am in the U.S. District court in Los Angeles.

End of Press release

Orly Taitz, Esq.


Saturday, June 30, 2012

Supreme Court confirms health care law UNCONSTITUTIONAL

“We the People” ask this Court to extend their session, and immediately set a special date within the next thirty-five days for re-argument
How did over twenty Attorneys General overlook this? Judge Roger Vinson, Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida, addressed the legislative history of the Act, HR3590. Both sides of the controversy asked him to. Vinson found that the bill originated in the US Senate. See, Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Service, –F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL285683 (ND) Fla. 2011. The House of Representatives were amending a Senate Bill, since it was found to have originated in the Senate. . .
By law, as confirmed by the dissenting Judges [see quote above]. only the House of Representatives may originate a revenue raising “Act.” The House accepted the Senate bill unlawfully, for expediency, independent of any written House Bill.
READ MORE

HAT TIP: THE POST & EMAIL (Subscription Only)

Friday, June 29, 2012

The real reason Chief Justice John Roberts changed his opinion at the last minute

Constitutional attorney/author/talk show host Mark Levin just now stated on his show today that he has "no doubt" that Chief Justice John Roberts changed his opinion at the "11th hour".

He is not the only one who holds this opinion.

Sen. Mike Lee: There are “signals” that Roberts changed his Obamacare vote

But what could possibly have caused a Chief Justice to turn on a dime in such a supremely [pun intended] important decision?

I would expect that an epiphany would be cause for great delight since I personally have always welcomed a sudden rush of insight or inspiration in my life. However,
CNN's top legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin re-emerged from the court with a strange tweet about the state of Chief Justice John Roberts when he read today's ruling in favor of upholding President Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation:
"Roberts was red-eyed and unhappy as he read."
So he changed his opinion at the last minute and he was unhappy?

Has anyone ever heard of the word "duress"?

I can think of one judge, in recent history, who was under duress:
U.S. marshals put Roll, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, under 24-hour protection for about a month. They guarded his home in a secluded area just outside Tucson, screening his mail and escorting him to court, to the gym and even to Mass.

Roll told the Post in May 2009 that "any judge who goes through this knows it's a stressful situation" and that he and his family were grateful for the protection.

More than a year after the threats against Roll, Arizona passed what is considered the nation's toughest immigration law, triggering a fierce national debate over illegal immigration and a lawsuit against the state by the Justice Department.
Slain federal judge John Roll was at the center of Arizona's immigration debate

But more than that, I can think of MANY people who have possibly suffered duress by having a relationship with Barack Hussein Obama:

"Crossing Obama Can Be Deadly"

This is the source of the previous link, but it now has two new entries: "Dead Pool"

There is big, international (think "George Soros") money behind Obama (or else Hillary would have been president) and so what do we all know about something this big?

That NOTHING will stand in the way, nothing can compete with such power and with that much money.

Yes, we have Biblical examples of truth to power -- David & Goliath for one -- but will WE be able to get back on the right side, on G-d's side in time?

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling


http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

Better yet, hit the Audio Link, and D/L the free podcast of todays' show.

Chief Justice Roberts raises money for Romney's campaign - UPDATE

What impact will the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare have on the presidential election?
Well, Romney got over $100,000 in less than an hour right after the SCOTUS ruling...but, wait:
Update, 1:28 ET: The RNC’s communication team now says the combined Romney and RNC Victory funds have raised over $1 million since the court’s decision.
Vote Romney or lose this country as founded.

More from Hot Air

UPDATE: Just heard on Hugh Hewit: it's now 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS TO ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN!!!

UPDATE #2: Forget 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS...TOTAL TALLY FOR YESTERDAY IS 4.6 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

OBAMACARE: 21 TAX INCREASES (12 ON FAMILIES EARNING LESS THAN $250,000 PER YEAR)

The Washington Times:
The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.

“This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low- and middle-income taxpayers,” said a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.
On the campaign trail four years ago and since taking office, Mr. Obama has been fond of saying that middle-class families will not see their taxes rise “a single dime” under his leadership.
READ MORE


Friday, August 21, 2009

Our first Chief Justice speaks about the Biblical view of War

John Jay (1745–1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795,
the first Chief Justice of the United States.

Excerpt from “John Jay on the Biblical View of War”
If the United States should unanimously resolve never more to use the sword, would a certified copy of it prove to be an effectual Mediterranean passport? Would it reform the predatory rulers of Africa, or persuade the successive potentates of Europe to observe towards us the conduct of real Christians? On the contrary, would it not present new facilities, and consequently produce new excitements, to the gratification of avarice and ambition?

It is true that even just war is attended with evils, and so likewise is the administration of government and of justice; but is that a good reason for abolishing either of them? They are means by which greater evils are averted. Among the various means necessary to obviate or remove, or repress, or to mitigate the various calamities, dangers, and exigencies, to which in this life we are exposed, how few are to be found which do not subject us to troubles, privations, and inconveniences of one kind or other. To prevent the incursion or continuance of evils, we must submit to the use of those means, whether agreeable or otherwise, which reason and experience prescribe.

It is also true, and to be lamented, that war, however just and necessary, sends many persons out of this world who are ill prepared for a better. And so also does the law in all countries. So also does navigation, and other occupations. Are they therefore all sinful and forbidden?

However desirable the abolition of all wars may be, yet until the morals and manners of mankind are greatly changed, it will be found impracticable. We are taught that national sins will be punished, and war is one of the punishments. The prophets predict wars at so late a period as the restoration of the Israelites. Who or what can hinder the occurrence of those wars?

I nevertheless believe, and have perfect faith in the prophecy, that the time will come when “the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” But does not this prophecy clearly imply, and give us plainly to understand, that in the meanwhile, and until the arrival of that blessed period, the nations will not beat their swords into plowshares, nor their spears into pruning-hooks; that nation will not forbear to lift up sword against nation, nor cease to learn war?

It may be asked, Are we to do nothing to hasten the arrival of that happy period? Literally, no created being can either accelerate or retard its arrival. It will not arrive sooner nor later than the appointed time.
Read the whole thing