Two ideas to empower Patriots-by passing lawyers

From: Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”

Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases is that all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “discovery” phase. Before a trail starts both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush”. The Federal Courts call this an Omnibus Hearing. The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden the case will be decided by court ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial they need to get a trail.

THE POWER OF A PATRIOT

by EA_LEO

People tend to either credit lawyers and judges far too much or discredit them to the extreme. The truth is lawyers and judges are greatly restricted by the privilege of license or of office. The people who are patriots have far more freedom of action and far less restrictions in our society.

Did you know that any citizen patriot can bring a criminal case against Barrack Hussein Obama in the County in which they reside? You do not have to be an Attorney General to indict a ham sandwich or a Barrack Obama. If a patriot had evidence of a crime committed by the 2008 BO campaign and that patriot presented said evidence to a sympathetic Grand Jury with a charge of conspiracy to commit said crime against Barrack Obama, that patriot could get BO indicted like that proverbial ham sandwich.

You might wonder how you get evidence against BO and members of his 2008 campaign? There were many newspaper, internet blog and TV reports of crimes committed by BO’s campaign workers all across the USA in 2007 and 2008. All you have to do is perform a google search to begin to write your presentation of criminal information for the indictment of BO and his co-conspirators in your County.

You might also give your friendly Sheriff or Police Chief a call and see if you can get some assistance from local law enforcement personnel in gathering evidence against the BO campaign.

To find standing, SCOTUS need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.

Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?

An executor of the Constitutional Contract is anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.

Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.

When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution, immediately, upon the taking of the Oath? In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.

As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.” Thus, Barack Hussein Obama having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law.

Furthermore from Marbury, “Specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has the right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. The question whether a right has vested or not, in its nature, judicial and must be tried by the judicial authority.” This means that anyone that can show that they were injured by BO’s actions has a right to sue him for said injury.

Most of the eligibility cases have focused on the “individual injured” theory which is an inherently weak legal argument in terms of present day law and a case involving the President of the United States, particularly in terms of getting standing.

Consequently, most of the cases previously filed have been dismissed for lack of standing. Simply stated, the lawyers did not include Plaintiffs who had a present contractual right or detriment recognized by law; or, the lawyers did not include Defendants who owed a present duty to the Plaintiffs or had somehow injured the Plaintiffs.

As you might have concluded, a Marbury argument overcomes the standing problem in that, all citizens got standing by the contractual commitment that Barrack Hussein Obama made to us all on January 20, 2009.

When the right case with the right Plaintiffs (with standing) and the right Defendants (with a duty owed to Plaintiffs) is brought in a Court with jurisdiction, then the case will be heard.

In SCOTUS, I dare say there is already a majority theoretically inclined to rule for the proper Plaintiffs. It is, after all, the Constitution which the Supremes are all sworn to uphold. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices are all “just” citizens of this Great Nation, and it is arguable the BO is not even a citizen and it is certain that BO is not Natural Born in the USA.

For those of you interested in reading more about standing or contract theory under Marbury, please see the following sites:

Steven Winter’s Landmark Essay on Standing

http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

Essays on Chief Justice Marshall

http://www.history1700s.com/page1760.shtml