Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Steel, Nguyen, Jurisdiction, Witnesses, and Barack Obama the Presidential Usurper

In 1998’s Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/83/case.html see from: @ 94 ff.

Text from : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-643.ZO.html

“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). “On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S., supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter “spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States” and is “inflexible and without exception.” Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884).
This Court's insistence that proper jurisdiction appear begins at least as early as 1804, when … the losing plaintiff who had himself failed to allege the basis for federal jurisdiction. Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126 (1804).Just last Term, we restated this principle in the clearest fashion, unanimously setting aside the Ninth Circuit’s merits decision in a case that had lost the elements of a justiciable controversy:
“[E]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to ‘satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review,’ even though the parties are prepared to concede it. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934). See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331—332 (1977) (standing). ‘And if the record discloses that the lower court was without jurisdiction this court will notice the defect, although the parties make no contention concerning it. [When the lower federal court] lack[s] jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.’ United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440 (1936) (footnotes omitted).” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. ___, (slip op., at 28) (1997), quoting from Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (brackets in original).

That basis of jurisdictional merit for even entertaining the suit is double-edged, it can see a case quashed, or a case simply shot up the ladder.

In regard to Constitutional Eligibility and violations to that eligibility on the part of the Candidate commisural to the high crimes, then the use of Case Precedent Justification must be used to (as the enemy liberal Cass Sunstein likes to put it)
"nudge" the Courts to accept federal jurisdiction. The aim is to legally and peacefully force a Writ of Mandamus for relevant witness and documentary proof from the accused Public and Government Office holder (being a Quo Warranto requirement, and the Public Office Holder by Law, must produce proof to the right to hold office). Tus, this double-edge sword of the Court's Jurisdiction issue can also apply by issuing Writs of Mandamus and Quo Warranto against the usurper of the Presidency, Barack Obama, as well as be served against those legal running interference for him and holding Public Office themselves.

The justification and sound reason to the right to demand proof of Obama's Citizenship, that he was even born on US soil -- if that were even the case -- is found through the clear ruling of two Justices in majority in 2001’s 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/

@ 54 :
“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.

@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

In the case of Barack Obama,
we have no original Birth Certificate or Hospital records to verify his birth, and the only witness still living to testify said he was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

We have attestations that Barack was born simultaneously in two completely differently owned and administratively alien hospitals 1.6 miles away from one another (says Obama and his sister Maya), while also being born in Indonesia (says Director of VA Affairs' as what Obama told her), and while also being born simultaneously in Mombasa, Kenya (by someone old enough to have witnessed the birth, step-grandmother Sarah; and confirmed by the Nairobi, Kenya news media such as the June 27, 2004 Eastern Standard
listing Barack Obama as a "Kenyan born" US Senator ).

Under Act 96 of the 1911-1972 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program, (i.e., from Presidents Taft to Nixon) any foreign birth could be recorded in Hawaii and receive a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth without any hospital or physician verification or de facto witnesses to the birth. Obama, being born in 1961, if even that is true (as we have no absolute verification released, only a confessed home computer forgery by an Obama loving Left wing fanatic) falls into the time period in question, and by his own testimony, Act 96 of the 1911-1972 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program. Thus, there is legal standing to insist that Obama prove he was even born on US soil.

Even with all this, since Obama was born of an alien national father, he is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. The resolving of the Birth Location, will tell us if he also illegally served as a State Senator from Illinois, and also then illegally as a US Senator from Illinois, being an illegal and undeclared alien who never legally naturalized because the mother failed to properly declare his foreign birth through proper channels. In fear of being exposed, Barack hired his "suppress the Birth Certificate challenges lawyer" from Perkins Coie, Bob Bauer, to use the full resources and finances of the Federal Government to protect Barack from ever being transparent as to his true national identity...which in his own auto-biography, Dreams From My Father, Barack labeled himself as a dual-citizen national. To be a dual-citizen means that Barack may be a citizen of two countries, but it is impossible for him to be a US "natural born citizen" in 1961, requiring both a US Citizen father and a US citizen mother. Since Obama Sr. never became a US citizen, nor filed, Barack is just as much a foreign usurper now as if he were sired by Osama Bin Laden or Moammar Khadaffi with a promiscuous American 18 years old girl. That is a legal fact, and we should -- on moral and legal principle -- not let go of this until all legal means via the Courts are exhausted. That's my input on this.

Update: Contact with N.J. Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, suing Obama on behalf of Kerchner, states:

"The problem is not that we have not framed enough questions to get at Obama's records. The problem is that the Courts are not willing to give plaintiffs standing to conduct discovery which would undoubtedly uncover all the Obama records."

No comments:

Post a Comment