Supreme Court | Empowered Patriots

This week, he nominated for the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor – a racist who mocks the notion that judges are merely supposed to interpret the law, not make it, under our constitutional system.

Do I exaggerate?

You decide.

In a 2001 speech, she said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

I think that statement speaks for itself, but let me paraphrase: Latina women judges are better than white men judges.

Imagine the public furor if a white male judge offered the opposite assessment. Would he be nominated for the Supreme Court? Would he be confirmed? Or would he be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail?

But it’s not just empty rhetoric from Sotomayor. She means what she says – and the evidence in her decisions. Sotomayor denied 19 New Haven firefighters promotions they had earned because none of them were black.

In other words, they were discriminated against for no other reason than the color of their skin. One of them, by the way, was a fellow Hispanic.

Sotomayor is comfortable making such decisions for one reason – she has no respect for the rule of law and the constitutional limits on the judiciary branch of government. In short, she believes it is perfectly appropriate for judges to make policy, legislate from the bench, create new law where none has previously existed.

She told another audience at Duke University in 2005: "All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

Need more persuading this woman is an extremist and unfit to be a spectator in the Supreme Court, let alone a justice?

Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. What is La Raza?

It bills itself as a "civil rights" organization. It would be more appropriate to say it disguises itself as such. It camouflages itself as such. It hides its real purpose and true intents as such – with the willing and skillful assistance of many of my media colleagues.

In reality, La Raza is a racist hate group – a band of "Hispanic supremacists," if you will, though it is seldom characterized that way.

It is no more a civil rights group than the Ku Klux Klan is a group promoting the civil rights of white people. It is no more a civil rights group than the neo-Nazi scum who marched a generation ago at Skokie, Ill., with the legal protection of the American Civil Liberties Union, another misnamed organization. It is no more a civil rights group than the Aryan skinheads who victimize Jews and others they detest in trying to lift themselves up from the gutter.

La Raza is part of the movement in this country to destroy it from within by dividing and "reconquering."

Its members and leadership are linked directly to those who believe the Southwestern U.S. was unjustly seized from Mexico in the 19th century. It should, they believe, by any means necessary, be reconstituted either as part of that thoroughly corrupt, socialist regime fled by tens of millions of refugees or as an independent, autonomous, Spanish-speaking socialist state – like the mythical land of Aztlan.

The only real differences between La Raza and the neo-Nazis and the KKK are its wealth, power and level of sophistication.

For decades now, Democratic Party politicians – and a few Republicans, like John McCain – have pandered to groups like La Raza in search of constituencies – votes. That is to be expected given the history of the Democratic Party, the party of the Klan and Jim Crow racism and, yes, even slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of division – the party of group rights rather than individual rights. It is the plantation party that rewards special interests rather than protecting the sovereignty of the individual with unalienable rights bestowed by our Creator.

What does La Raza literally mean? The race. Not surprising that Sotomayor would belong to such a group. Because that’s what she’s all about – race.

May 31, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Eligibility attorney asks Supremes to cooperate with FBI

A lawyer investigating the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to cooperate with an FBI investigation into alleged cyber crimes connected to her work.

In a letter addressed yesterday to Chief Justice John Roberts, the associate justices, the Secret Service and others, California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is working on a number of eligibility cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, wrote, "I hope that the Supreme Court will show proper cooperation in investigation of such crimes by the FBI and other agencies and I request a letter of cooperation to that extent."

Taitz is just one of many attorneys across the country whose clients are raising questions about Obama’s eligibility.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz is one of several lawyers who have brought emergency motions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the cases, only to have them dropped without a hearing.

While her effort was pending at the court, its references suddenly were scrubbed from the public website just two days before a conference among justices on the case was to be heard.

She filed a complaint with the FBI, which promised a review, but the investigative agency noted that in that situation, technically the Supreme Court was the "victim" of having its website hacked, and officials there would need to cooperate for the effort to move forward.

That circumstance generated Taitz’ letter requesting cooperation.

"This is particularly important in light of the fact that there is a common denominator in a number of cyber crimes committed," Taitz wrote. She cited a hacking into her PayPal account where donations to her foundation allegedly could have been diverted, sabotage on her website and the creation of an "imposter site" for one of the plaintiffs in one of her cases.

"All of these cyber crimes, together with all the other crimes that are handled separately, have one common denominator – a concerted effort to put Obama in the White House and keep him there by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of his records," she wrote.

The president also has been named in an indictment turned in by a peoples’ grand jury in Georgia, and one other man has sought a criminal complaint against the president.

Taitz also told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."

Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.

"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.

"By each relator’s constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.

"In arguendo of Respondent Obama’s burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.

"Quo Warranto" essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."

What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.

As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama’s birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn’t the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."

WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he’s taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

April 04, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Taitz to FBI: Investigate ‘tampering’ at Supremes

Posted: March 21, 2009 12:15 am Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
‘305 million Americans need to know if foreign national is usurping presidency’
A California attorney battling on a number of fronts to obtain documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president is asking the FBI and U.S. Secret Service to investigate suspected "tampering" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Orly Taitz, who is pursuing nearly half a dozen causes through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, says the issue of Obama’s eligibility to meet the Constitution’s demand for a "natural born" president has been before the Supreme Court at least four times.

But she wonders whether the justices actually were given the pleadings to review.

"I believe … that there was tampering with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the justices never saw those briefs," she alleges in a letter to the FBI’s Robert Mueller, the Secret Service’s Mark Sullivan and Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Three hundred five million American citizens … need to know whether a foreign national is usurping the position of the president and the commander in chief," she wrote.

Taitz raises questions about "forgery of court records, tampering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related crimes."

Specifically, she points to the handling of her own case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Although it was scheduled for a conference, no hearing ever was held.

Join one third of a million people who are seeking the truth on whether Obama meets the Constitution’s "natural born" citizenship clause.

Taitz notes that references to the case were erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, shortly after Obama, the defendant, met with eight of the nine justices behind closed doors.

It happened just two days before her case was scheduled to be reviewed in conference.

Secondly, Taitz notes that in her conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia at a book-signing in Los Angeles several weeks ago, he appeared to have no knowledge of the cases that had been submitted.

She said she mentioned her case and those brought by Cort Wrotnowski, Philip Berg and Leo Donofrio.

"In the presence of several attorneys, law students and Secret Service agents Justice Scalia kept saying that he didn’t know anything … even though all of the plaintiffs have received notification that all of those cases were reviewed by all nine justices," she said.

Taitz said she’s also concerned that the Supreme Court docket was somehow modified.

"Did somebody from outside break and enter into the computer system of the Supreme Court or was it done by one of the overzealous employees who wanted to keep Obama in the White House?" she asked.

"I demand to see the printout of entries of both internal docket seen by justices and the external docket seen by the public to verify if those were identical at all times, particularly between January 20th and January 23rd," she said.

She also raised the possibility that justices’ signatures may have been "stamped" on documentation.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

Her allegations, she said, were part of what she submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts when she met him at the University of Idaho a week ago.

"Due to the … great urgency of the matter in relation to the national security of the United States … I demand immediate investigation of this matter," Taitz wrote.

Taitz also is developing a Quo Warranto case that has been submitted to Holder.

Essentially, the case demands to know what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

As WND reported, Taitz already has submitted a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through Defend Our Freedoms alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
*

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

March 22, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Chief justice accepts ‘eligibility’ petition

Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND’s 330,000 signers. A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution’s "natural-born citizen" clause.

According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition.

"I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience," Taitz told WND, "including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers."

Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005.

Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama’s eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard.

Taitz said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency."

The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"Tell me what to do, what can I do?" Taitz reports asking Scalia. "Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?"

She says Scalia responded, "Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others."

In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers.

As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

She asserts docketing information about her case "was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard]."

At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case.

Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court.

"I said, ‘Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I’m an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o’clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,’" Taitz told WND. "My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?"

According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, "I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.

"Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket," Taitz told Roberts.

Then she held up the WND petition and continued, "Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for presidency."

According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, "I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them."

Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.

Taitz reports the documents included four major sections:

* A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs.

* The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case.

* The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.

* A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website.