RSS Feed
July 19th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda 
Of the dozens of lawsuits questioning the constitutional eligibility
of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States, one has
finally reached the docket of the Supreme Court. Should the Court accept
the case for review, it will be the first upon which the justices will
issue a substantive ruling—one based on the merits. ~ Doug Book
On February 3rd, Georgia Administrative Court Judge
Michael Malihi ruled that Barack Obama is eligible to appear on the
Georgia ballot. It was a case during which Malihi received not one scrap
of evidence from Obama or his attorney.
Subpoenas from plaintiffs were
ignored; Obama’s clear burden of proof was NOT imposed.
Plaintiff’s
motions for contempt were neither acted upon nor forwarded to higher
courts; and U.S. Supreme Court precedent took a back seat to the
rambling, non-substantive pronouncement of dicta from an Indiana
justice.
Yet in his 10 page ruling,
Malihi had the monumental gall to claim…
“This decision is entirely
based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented
at the hearing.”
Malihi’s ruling was then rubber stamped through the
Georgia Superior Court and eventually denied review by the state’s
Supreme Court as both refused to apply basic principles of jurisprudence
to the legally indefensible tripe offered by the Administrative Court
judge.
But on June 28th, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Plaintiffs David Weldon, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell v Barack Obama was filed
with the Supreme Court. These are the plaintiffs whose case had been
argued before Judge Malihi by attorneys Van Irion and Mark Hatfield.
It is an important event because all other eligibility cases appealed
to the Supreme Court had been dismissed in lower courts exclusively on
procedural grounds, the plaintiff’s lack of standing being the most
common.
Such procedural decisions relieve judges from the potentially
career-ending task of issuing an honest and legally supportable ruling
dismissing Barack Obama from his job and opening him to charges of
fraud.
Cases dismissed on procedural grounds are almost NEVER taken
up by the Supreme Court.
The Weldon v Obama case will pose 2 vitally important questions
to the Court.
First of all,
“…whether states can be forced to accept
any candidate from a political party for presentation on state ballots
even when the candidates do not meet the required qualifications.”
Attorneys for Obama have argued that it is up to the particular
political party to decide who their presidential nominee will be and
that it is not necessary that the party obey state laws that demand the
nominee be qualified to hold that office.
And most importantly, the Supreme Court could decide whether the
“natural born citizen” definition written by the Supreme Court in the
1875 case of Minor v Happersett will at last be awarded the
precedential status ignored by so many cowardly and corrupt judges in
response to the matter of Obama’s eligibility.
The American public should know by early fall whether the Supreme
Court is willing to rule on the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility
for the White House by addressing the constitutional importance and
definition of natural born citizen.
In short, by its decision to hear or
ignore the case, we will know whether the Court truly represents little
more than the small but powerful cabal of Washington DC’s political
ruling class made so evident by the ObamaCare ruling.
Doug Book – July 18, 2012 – posted at WesternJournalism
digg
muti
del.icio.us
google
reddit
facebook
Posted in 
Tags: 
