Effective Resistance to usurpers is possible only provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them (The Federalist, No. 28, Alexander Hamilton)
Now isn’t this cozy; Chief Justice John Roberts and the other eight Justices of the Supreme Court invited the usurper president-elect and his sidekick over to their office for tea and crumpets the other day. This is rather sleazy, don’t you think, since they continue to hear cases revolving around the usurper’s eligibility to actually become the president. I guess they don’t see a conflict here, since there were a couple of pictures released showing them all smiles, especially Roberts, who looked like a cat that just swallowed a canary.
In the meantime, Berg’s motion for injunction to block the Electoral College vote was on the SCOTUS conference today, and it looks like another denial, as it is not one of the cases showing up on the Orders Docket for today. Why am I not surprised?
However, not to be deterred, Berg has written a letter to the individual members of Congress, asking for Congressional Hearings regarding the usurper’s qualifications for president, since they did not question him prior to the January 8 counting of the Electoral College vote. Below are excerpts from the letter:
***************************************************************
January 15, 2009
Dear Member of Congress:
It is your duty, as a duly elected representative of the American people; to regain the respect you have lost by your inaction in not vetting Soetoro a/k/a Obama, by calling for a Congressional Hearing ASAP to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of the United States .
My, my, you and the other Members of Congress just showed your true character, that being, no guts, no backbone and only interested in getting re-elected.
I refer to each of you in your lack of action regarding the now President-elect Soetoro/Obama.
As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution.
On January 8, 2009, you failed your constituencies, your voters, the citizens in your district, as well as all citizens in our nation. Yes, you failed all of us, the ‘We the People,’ yes, the words that begin our U.S. Constitution. Federal Law, 3 U.S.C. 15 provides a method to challenge the counting of the electoral votes in the Joint Session of Congress. If only one [1] Member of the House and one [1] Member of the Senate announced in writing that they were objecting to the Electoral Vote in any/every state, the counting of the votes would stop and the Joint Session would cease until the House and Senate meet, discussed and voted on each States Electoral Votes.
Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as President.
Soetoro/Obama, being ‘ineligible/unqualified’ due to his lack of being ‘natutal born’ means that Obama will be ‘usurping’ the powers of the Office of President of the United States. It will result in every, yes every law that Soetoro/Obama signs, every appointment to an Ambassador or Judgeship, all will be invalid. Soetoro/Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed, both internally and externally.
Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured. Our fundamental right to cast an informed vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential candidate has been violated. Further, our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association have been violated because we have been robbed of the opportunity to cast our objections through our Representatives to the counting of the Electoral Votes.
To redeem yourself, I implore you to call with your Congressional colleagues for a Congressional Hearing and ask the questions that you failed to do regarding President-elect Soetoro/Obama, even after he tries to hide behind the Office of the Presidency, to resolve the issue without question of the citizenship status and qualifications as set forth in ‘our’ U.S. Constitution. Such a procedure has and is occurring regarding the proposed members of the Cabinet.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Berg
****************************************************************
Orly Taizt also continues on with the fight. Her case is scheduled for a SCOTUS conference next Friday, January 23. In the meantime, Taitz has filed a petition with the court asking them to recuse themselves from swearing the usurper into office. Below are excerpts from her petition:
BACKGROUND
The inauguration of Barack Obama (Obama) is scheduled for January 20, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts is scheduled to administer the oath of office to Obama.
Litigants in both federal and state courts have challenged Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President. The specific constitutional question is whether Obama is a natural born citizen, which is an absolute prerequisite to occupy the Office of President.
In addition to this case, 31 cases challenging Obama's eligibility have been filed in different courts around the nation.
This case is currently scheduled to be heard at the conference of all nine Justices on January 23, three days after the scheduled inauguration.
One who administers an oath conveys to the audience that the one taking the oath is eligible to do so. Many words can be used in lieu of "conveys", including certifies, endorses, attests, vouches, and ratifies. When one administers an oath, verbal certifications, endorsements, attestations, vouchers, or ratifications are not necessary--acts speaks louder than words.
There is no impediment to the Chief Justice declining to administer the oath. Administering the oath to an incoming President is required by the Constitution. But there is no requirement about who must perform that act. Although the Chief Justice traditionally does it, other federal judges have done so. An Associate Supreme Court Justice has done it. So have a Circuit Court and District Court judge.
But it has not always been a federal judge. Twice, New York judges performed the task. The first was George Washington's first term, since no federal judges had yet been appointed. The second was almost 100 years later, when Chester Arthur assumed office.
Under current case law, the totality of circumstances supports recusal. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540 (1994) – authored by Justice Scalia – reviewed the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 455, especially in view of the “massive changes” made in 1974, 510 U.S. , at546. It was specifically noted that, “what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.
Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [i]s required whenever ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Moreover, subsection (a) “covers all aspects of partiality” 510 U.S. , at 546, 510 U.S. , at 553. It should be pointed out that Canon 3(C)(1) mirrors 28 USCS § 455 (a) in stating that “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Kennedy’s concurrence also made the point that recusal is mandatory here:
[T]he central inquiry under § 455(a) is the appearance of partiality, not its place of origin; 510 U.S. , at 563
Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified. 510 U.S. , at 564 and Section 455(a) … addresses the appearance of partiality, guaranteeing not only that a partisan judge will not sit, but also that no reasonable person will have that suspicion. 510 U.S. , at 567.
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) – another Supreme Court case that considered 28 U.S.C. § 455 in depth – similarly emphasized that “a violation of § 455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that a justice, judge, or magistrate knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality,
notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances.” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. , at 850.
Along these lines, the lower courts have determined that:
[T]he judge’s actual state of mind, purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are not the issue. … The standard is purely objective. The inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In applying the test, the initial inquiry is whether a reasonable factual basis exists for calling the judge’s impartiality into question.
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).
“[T]he appearance of partiality is as dangerous as the fact of it.” Conforte, 624 F.2d at 881.
Because “a judge is under an affirmative, self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself sua sponte whenever the proper grounds exist.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th
Cir. 1989)
CONCLUSION
The integrity of our nation’s judiciary, both federal and state, is at stake. So is respect for all judges and belief in their impartiality. Having a system of impartial justice is one of our most cherished freedoms and it must protected.
respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,
counselor for the petitioners
To read both Berg’s and Taitz’s complete communications, go to their websites:
Recent Comments