The Patriot’s Choice
By
Leo Patrick Haffey
John Charlton gave a clear and concise statement of the Patriot’s Choice in his article regarding the latest legal maneuvers by BHO’s “justice” department lawyers in the Kerchner case, “It’s a simple choice then: the Constitution or tyranny; liberty or death!”
If you think that lawyers, judges or congressmen are going to save our Republic, our Constitution, our Liberty, you are in for a rude awakening. As the boy said to the dead man in the movie, The Sixth Sense, ”the lawyers and judges are the ones doing the hangings.”
At least, it is true that BHO’s lawyers and judges are lynching our Republic, destroying our Constitution, and killing our Liberty.
I digress. Now back to Kerchner and the issue of standing. It was almost two years ago that I first wrote in The Steady Drip about the problems with standing in the cases against HBO. For a detailed analysis of the myriad problems with standing in the previously filed cases against BHO, please visit the following sites:
http://grandjury.blogtownhall.com
http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm
As expressed in my original article on The Steady Drip, the Constitutional Contract is an executory contract binding upon anyone and everyone who takes Oath to uphold the Constitution for consideration of a position, e.g., the Presidency of the United States. Thus, 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.”
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. All of the eligibility cases, previously filed, 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.
All of the aforementioned begs the question, how can We the People enforce our Constitutional contract with Barack Hussein Obama?Our Founding Fathers provided for enforcement of our Constitution when violated by recalcitrant politicians like Obama in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to Our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers provided a Citizen Grand Jury system for Patriots to form Grand Juries to exercise self-governance and take Our Country back from corrupt and/or criminal politicians.In United States vs. Williams (USSC 1992) Justice Scalia eloquently wrote, "Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history...the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” In other words the power of the Grand Jury is assigned to We the People in order that we may obtain a "more perfect Union."
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/citizens-grand-jury-speech-by-gerry.html
Leo Patrick Haffey is a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee who has worked in the music, motion picture and television industries as a producer. Mr. Haffey’s productions have been broadcast on most of the major television networks. Mr. Haffey has done extensive legal research on the Constitution, in particular the Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America.
http://grandjury.blogtownhall.com
7 hours ago
6 comments:
Mr. Haffey:
I note that you have in other posts alluded to blog postings you've done two years ago (e.g., 2008) on the BHO eligibility issue.
Since I've not been able to find any from you (or possibly you used another name in the posting) could you furnish a link to the 2008 posting(s) you mentioned??
Ramjet!
Email me. The axe you grind isn 't something I want in my comments section.
Ramjet:
I conclude that you are not a nice person. But, I suspect you are accustomed to hearing that.
We are on the same side and we do not need to have a civil war in the movement.
IMO, there are several people in the anti-AKA Obama movement who are not only wrong but they have damaged our cause. However, I have never "bad mouthed" an team member.
That is why I don't want your comments on my blog.
However, you are still welcome to email me.
Post a Comment